Document Type: 
Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): 
Release Decision: 
Original Classification: 
Document Page Count: 
Document Creation Date: 
December 9, 2016
Document Release Date: 
September 2, 2001
Sequence Number: 
Case Number: 
Publication Date: 
June 14, 1974
Content Type: 
PDF icon CIA-RDP75B00380R000500410005-1.pdf40.26 MB
0 Approved - Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B003e1DR00 ?/(0.0 INTERIM FISHERIES ZONE EXTENSION AND MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1973 HEARINGS BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANS AND ATMOSPHERE OF THE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE UNITED STATES SENATE NINETY-THIRD CONGRESS SECOND SESSION ON S. 380 TO ESTABLISH A CONTIGUOUS FISHERY ZONE (TO THE OUTER LIMITS OF THE CONTINENTAL SHELF) BEYOND THE TERRI- TORIAL SEA OF THE UNITED STATES S. 1988 TO EXTEND ON AN INTERIM BASIS THE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES OVER CERTAIN OCEAN AREAS AND FISH IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE DOMESTIC FISHING INDUSTRY, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES S. 2338 TO PROVIDE FOR THE CONSERVATION OF THE UNITED STATES COASTAL AND ANADR01410US FISH APRIL 18, 19, 26; MAY 3, 13, 14; AND JUNE 14, 1974 PART 3 Serial No. 93-54 Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce CRS/AB/inf.-WE Approved For Release 2001/09/09 iiA-RDP75p,00380R000500410005-1 4192,.f Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 INTERIM FISHERIES ZONE EXTENSION AND MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1973 HEARINGS BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANS AND ATMOSPHERE OF THE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE UNITED STATES SENATE NINETY-THIRD CONGRESS SECOND SESSION ON S. 380 TO ESTABLISH A CONTIGUOUS FISHERY ZONE (TO THE OUTER LIMITS OF THE CONTINENTAL SHELF) BEYOND THE TERRI- TORIAL SEA OF THE UNITED STATES S. 1988 TO EXTEND ON AN INTERIM BASIS THE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES OVER CERTAIN OCEAN AREAS AND FISH IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE DOMESTIC FISHING INDUSTRY, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES S. 2338 TO PROVIDE FOR THE CONSERVATION OF THE UNITED STATES COASTAL AND ANADROMOUS FISH APRIL 18, 19, 26; MAY 3, 13, 14; AND JUNE 14, 1974 PART 3 Serial No. 93-54 Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 36-709 WASHINGTON : 1974 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE WARREN G. mAGNusolg, Washington, Chairman JOHN 0. PASTORE, Rhode Island VANCE HA RTKE, Indiana PHILIP A. HART, Michigan HOWARD W. CANNON, Nevada RUSSELL B. LONG, Louisiana ERA NK E. MOSS, Utah ERNIE:ST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii JOHN V. TUNNEY, California .ADIAT E. STEVENSON III, Illinois FREDERICK J. LOB DAN, Staff Director MICHAEL PERTSCHUK, Chief Counsel .TANIES P. WALsii, Staff Counsel JOHN H. WEDIN, Professional Staff Member ARTHUR PANKOPF, Jr., Minority Staff Director EAF LE E. COSTELLO, MinoriV Professional Staff Member NORRIS COTTON, New Hampshire .1AMES B. PEARSON, Kansas ROBERT P. GRIFFIN, Michigan HOWARD H. BAKER, Jr., Tennessee MARLOW W. COOK, Kentucky TED STEVENS, Alaska .1. GLENN BEALL, Jr., Maryland :,(iliCOMMITTEE ON OCEANS AND ATMOSPHERE ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina, Chairman JOHN 0. PASTORE, Rhode Island PHILIP A. HART, Michigan RUSSELL B. LONG, Louisiana DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii FRANK E. MOSS, Utah JOHN V. TUNNEY, California TED STEVENS, Alaska ROBERT P. GRIFFIN, Michigan MARLOW W. COOK, Kentucky J. GLENN BEALL, Jr., Maryland ;ID Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 CONTENTS CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF 'WITNESSES APRIL 18, 1974 Page Opening statement by Senator Tunney 461 Carry, Charles R., executive director, American Tuna Research Founda- tions, Inc 513 Cary, Harold F., general manager, Ocean Fisheries, Inc.; Edmund A. Gann, general manager, Western Ocean Products; and Richard Hodg- kins, executive vice president, Westgate Terminals 497 Letter of August 1, 1973 500 Prepared statement of Mr. Gann 503 Dunphy, Dean R., president, San Diego Chamber of Commerce; accom- panied by Dave Parkinson, chairman, Oceanic Council, San Diego Cham- ber of Commerce; and August Felando, general manager, American Tunaboat Association 470 Letter of April 16, 1974 470 Edney, Steve, president of the United Canery and Industrial Workers of the Pacific, SIU, AFL-CIO, Carl C. Marino, secretary-treasurer, San Diego Fisherman's Union of the Pacific, AFL-CIO, and Ralph Spniello, secretary-business agent of the Seine and Line Fisherman's Union, AFL- CIO, of San Pedro, Calif 506 Felando, August, general malinger, American Tunaboat Association; Lester Balinger, executive secretary, American Tuna Sales Association; and Anthony Pisano, general manager, Fisherman's Cooperative Asso- ciation477 Hager, Don, administrator of the Unified Port Disitclet, San Diego, Calif 468 Prepared statement 469 Heriot, Joanne, administrative assistant to the supervisor, on behalf of the San Diego County Board of Supervisors 467 Kameon, Herbert It., executive vice president, Ocean Fish Protective Association; chairman, conservation committee, Balboa Angling Club, and representative of the National Coalition for Marine Conservation 553 Klein Alfred M., attorney 542 Prepared statement 544 Royal, John J., executive secretary-treasurer, Fishermen and Allied Work- ers Union, ILWT_T 536 Van Deerlin, Hon. Lionel, U.S. Representative from California 463 Prepared statement 466 Wilson, Hon. Bob, U.S. Representative from California 473 Prepared statement 475 Zeluff, Mrs. George N., on behalf of the Women's Propeller Club of the United States, Port of San Diego 548 APRIL 19, 1974 Opening statement by Senator Tunney 599 Brown, Robert, conservation chairman, San Francisco Tyee Club 650 Prepared statement 651 Grotting, Dennis, Fishermen's Marketing Association, Eureka, Calif 611 Prepared statement 695 Keenan, Robert, California Department of Fish and Game 644 Keene, Barry, assemblyman, State of California 600 Kohlhauf, Ed, Salmon Unlimited 648 (III) Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 iv Page Lazio, Lawrence, president, Lazio Fish Co., Eureka, Calif 628 Munro, A. W., Santa Barbara, Western Fishboat Owners Association 640 Smith, Vernon J., California Wildlife Federation 635 Speer, Harold E., Moss Landing, Western Fishboat Owners Association 639 Warnock, Basil, fisherman, Coos Bay, Oreg 627 Whalen, Vice Adm Mark A., 12th Coast Guard District, San Francisco, Calif 603 Zierold, John, legislative representative of the Sierra Club 633 APRIL 26, 1974 opening statement by the Chairman 653 Carry, Charles R., executive director, the Tuna Research Foundation, Inc. ; Gordon C. Broadhead, president, Living Marine Resources, Inc.; Ralph Spinello, secretary-business agent, Seine and Line Fishermen's Union ; and August Felando, general manager, American Turralsoat As- sociation _ 700 Prepared statement of Mr. Broadhead 703 Prepared statement of Mr. Felando_ 727 Supplementary statement of Mr. Felando 745 Clouston, Ross, prsident, National Fisheries Institute 695 Levering, Samuel R., U.S. Committee for the Oceans; .and Pastry Jarvis, administrative assistant, National Parks and Conservation Association 766 Prepared statement of Mr. Levering 779 Prepared statement of Mr. Jarvis_ 782 Mauerman:a, Robert G., executive director, Texas Shrimp Association 666 Sahlman, C. W., on behalf of Stillman Seafoods, the American Shrimpboat Association, and the Southeastern Fisheries Association 672 Prepared statement 676 Saletie, William G., executive manager, Seiners Association 692 Spinello, Ralph J., secretary-business agent, Seine and Line Fishermen's: Union 764 Utz, William Nelson, executive director, National Shrimp Congress 634 Letter of May 22, 1974 664 Yonker, W. V., executi* vice president, Association of Pacific Fisheries 680 MAY 3, 1974 Rush, Hon. Kenneth, Acting Secretary, Department of State; accompa- nied by John Norton Moore, Chairman, National Security Council Inter- agency Task Force on Law of the Sea and Deputy Special Representative of the President for the Law of the Sea Conference; Donald McKernan, Burdick Brittin, consultants to the Department of State; and Robert M. White, Administrator, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra- tion ; accompanied by Howard W. Pollock, Deputy Administrator; and Robert S. Sehoning, Director, National Marine Fisheries Service 789 Qustions of the committe and the answers thereto 824 Ternyik, Wilbur E., chairman, Oregon Coastal Conservation and Develop- ment Commission; and Larry Qualnian, president, Port Commission or Coos Bay, Oreg_ .828 MAY 13, 1974 opening statement by Senator Pastore 833 Allen, Richard B., executive secretary, Atlantic Offshore Fish and Lobster Association 849 Cronnan. John, chief, Division of Fish and Wildlife, Rhode Island De- partment of Natural Resources 840 Dykstra, Jacob j., president, Point Judith Fishermen's Cooperative Associ- ation, Inc 857 Goodwin, Steven W 864 Herman, James, marine biologist, Division of Natural Resources, Uni- versity of Rhode Island__ 846 Holmes, Hon. Herbert U., State representative from Barrington, R.I 839 Lowery, Robert, Department of Natural Resources 861 Modesto, Octavio, general manager, Seafood Producers Association 860 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/09/077 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Page O'Neill, Hon. William C., State senator from Rhode Island 867 Rorholm, Dr. Niels, coordinator, University of Rhode Island sea grant college program; accompanied by Dr. Andreas Holmsen, professor of re- source economics, University of Rhode Island 842 ?Simms, George, chairman, salt water committee, Federated Island Sports- men's Club 862 St Germain, Hon. Fernand J., U.S. Representative from Rhode Island, statement 863: Taber, Robert, commercial fisheries specialist, University of Rhode Island_ 847 Tiernan, Hon. Robert 0., U.S. Representative from Rhode Island 836 Prepared statement 837 MAY 14, 1974 Opening statement by Senator Pastore 869 Donnigan, John II., director, Boston Seafood Workers 929 Dukakis, Michael 903 Favazza, Salvatore J., executive secretary, Gloucester Fisheries Com- mission 905 Letter of May 17, 1974 906 Gordon, Bernard L., vice chairman, marine resource development com- mittee, the New England Council, Boston, Mass 923 Kennedy, Hon. Edward M., U.S. Senator from Massachusetts 869 Prepared statement 871 King, Edward J., executive director, Massachusetts Port Authority 879 Lutz, Capt. Paul and Commander Palmer, U.S. Coast Guard 898 McNerny, Michael J., director, New England Maritime Union 928 Michelson, ITarvey, attorney, Seafood Dealers Association 919 Modesto, Octavio, Seafood Producers Association 925 Prepared statement 925 Nickerson, 'Toward, on behalf of the New Bedford, Mass., fishing fleet 922 O'Rourke, Hugh, New England Fisheries Steering Committee; accompa- nied by Thomas Norris, Old Colony Trawler Corp.; and Jacob J. Dyk- stra, president, Point Judith Fishermen's Cooperative Association 889 Prepared statement of Mr. Dykstra 896 Perry, Vasco, alternate trustee, International Longshoreman's Association_ 932 Roche, Leonard J., president, Boat Owners United, Inc., New Bedford, Mass. 917 Sargent, lion. Francis W., Governor, State of Massachusetts 881 Silva, Hon Richard R., State representative from Massachusetts 931 Skinner, Austin, New Bedford Fishermen's Union 916 Studds, Hon. Gerry E., U.S. Representative from Massachusetts 88a Prepared statement 888 Weld, Christopher M., National Coalition for Marine Conservation; accom- panied by Hal Lyman, sports fisherman 919 JUNE 14, 1974 Carlton, Frank, president, National Coalition for Marine Conservation; accompanied by William G. Mustard 948 Jacobson, Jon L., University of Oregon School of Law 942 Sargent, Hon Francis, Governor, State of Massachusetts 935 ADDITIONAL ARTICLES, LETTERS, AND STATEMENTS Allen, John R., secretary, Save Our Sound Fisheries Association, letter of May 13, 1974 1006 Alperin, Irwin M., executive director, Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, letter of June 12, 1974 1011 Andreani, Ronald, president, Salmon Trollers Marketing Association, letter of April 19, 1974 975 Boat Owners Associafion of the United States, statement 956 Brooke, lion. Edward W., U.S. Senator from Massachusetts, letter of May 13, 1974 876 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 vi Page Chaves, Hon. Joseph J., State senator from Massachusetts, statement__ 957 Committee ,m the Peaceful Uses of the Sea-Bed and the Ocean Floor be- yond the Limits of National Jurisdiction, subcommittee II, article 567 Cookinghanc, Russell A., director, Department of Environmental Protee lion, State of New Jersey, letters of: May 6, 1974 999 May 15, 1974 1006 Corson, Bernard W.. director, Fish and Game Department, State of New Hampshire, letter of June 7, 1974_ 1010 Cotton, Hon. Norris, U.S. Senator from New Hampshire, letter of May 13, 1974 876 Egan, Hon. William A. Governor, State of Alaska, letter of March 11, 1974_ 974 Goodwin, Capt., Steven, letter of May 7, 1974 852 Johnson. Donald R., regional director. National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA, Department of Commerce, letter of January 29, 1974 636 Kennedy, lion. Edward M., U.S. Senator from Massachusetts, statement 955 Krueger, Mrs. 0. K., letter of July 3, 1974 1013 Lazio, Lawrence. statement 1022 Mulligan, John P.. assistant executive director, Tuna Research Founda- tion Inc., letter of May 10. 1974 1002 Murphy, Dennis J., Jr., director, Rhode Island Department of Natural Re- sources, s mtement 958 Nielson, Edward. city clerk. City of San Diego, letter of June 6, 1974 1009 Noel. Hon. Adlip W., Governor, State of Rhode Island, letter of May 29, 1 1974 008 Ocean Law Memo, article 1021 Packwood, Hon. Bob, U.S. Senator from Oregon, statement 787 Pearson, Rear Adm.. H. S., U.S. Coast Guard, letter of May 24, 1974 902 Pell, Hon. Claiborne, U.S. Senator from Rhode Island, letter of May 10, 1974 1000 Raleigh, Charles. president, Halibut Producers Cooperative, statement 960 Rasinnson, Elmer, statement_ 939 Reason and Rationality?The 200-Mile Issue, article 1026 Reinhardt, Donal E., chairman, Government Affairs Committee, Northwest h'isheries Association, statement 959 Russian, ananese Nets Recovered at Winchester Bay "Strictly Illegal," article 1023 Sacks. Howard D., statement_ 547 Saila, Saul, professor of oceanography, University of Rhode Lsland, state- ment 842 Salman. Bert .1., president, Propeller Club of the United States, letter of April 16. 1974 566 Sal tonstall, Hon. William L., State senator from Massachusetts, state- ment 878 Simes. George, salt water chairman, Federated Rhode Island Sportsmen's Clubs, statement 957 The Bluetin Tuna Situation. article 559 The 200-Mile Limit and the Law, article 1013 Tolley, Everett A., executive director, Shellfish Institute of North America, letter of June 3, 1974 1009 united Fisherman's Wives Organizations, statement 922 Welles, Ted, statement 960 White, Robert M., Administrator, NO/LA, Department of Commerce, letter ne May 1, 1974 976 Wiese. John, letter of February 23, 1974 966 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/09/07: CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 INTERIM FISHERIES ZONE EXTENSION AND MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1973 THURSDAY, APRIL 18, 1974 U. S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANS AND ATMOSPHERE, San Diego, Calif. The subcommittee met at 9:30 a.m. in Portuguese Hall, 2818 Ad- dison Street, Hon. John V. Tunney presiding. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TUNNEY Senator TUNNEY. Today we begin 2 days of hearings on the most important issue presently facing the California fishing industry. The proposed legislation we will be considering calls for a sub- stantial extension of the U.S. capability to regulate fishing in our coastal waters. Under this legislation, the present 12 mile contiguous fisheries zone would be extended up to 200 miles, giving the Federal Government vastly increased power to control foreign fishing vessels. This legislation also would significantly extend the claims of U.S. jurisdiction over domestic anadromous fish, such as salmon, even to ranges far beyond the proposed 200 mile limit. This legislation is expressly interim in nature and would terminate as soon as the Law of the Sea Conference now in progress puts into force a treaty regarding jurisdiction and conservation. Since introduction of this legislation, many California coastal fishermen have told me that foreign fishing fleets, simply by staying outside the present 12 mile limit, can ignore fishery conservation practices decimating the fish population to the point where the continued existence of California coastal fishing itself would be endangered. At the same time, however, many representatives of the California tuna fishing industry have stated that unilateral extension of our contiguous fisheries zone to 200 miles, even on an "interim" basis, would be a blatant violation of international law and would in- evitably lead to the destruction of the California tuna fishing fleet and the cannery and other support facilities dependent upon it. Furthermore, they tell me that such a violation of international law would destroy this country's grounds for protecting California fishermen under the Fishermen's Protective Act of 1967. Staff members assigned to these hearings: James P. Walsh and John H. Wedin. (461) Approved For Release 2001/09/07: CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 462 It is my belief that the task we face is to assure that we will con- serve California's extremely valuable coastal fisheries resources with- out. Jeopardizing protection of our crucial tuna fishing industry, which is the largest fishing industry we have in Califmnia. 1 am holding these hearings in order that I may provide the Senate with as much information as possible from representatives of all sectors of California's fishing industry and from interested environmental and conservation groups, enabling the Senate to act more, krowledgeably on this vital issue. Clearly, on an issue such as tins, where millions of dollars and thousands of California jobs are potentially at stake, it is essential that the views of concerned Cali- fornians: are fully on the record for the use of the Commerce- Com- mittee and the Congress. I want to receive the views of all sides and all groups in detail. My intent is to see to it that the interests of all concerned are served by whatever legislation ultimately comes out of the Congress. T might add that hearings are being held by commerce committee chairman Senator Warren Magnuson of the State of Washington. Ifearings are to be held on the east coast in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and it's my understanding that there will be other hearings held as well in other States that have coastal waters. I'm very deeply concerned by one matter, which I heard as I came into the building today, and that is that apparently there has been a decision and action by the Panamanian Government which has resulted in the picking up of a tunaboat when it was coining into the Canal Zone for the purpose, of trying to find medical treat- ment for one of the crewmen, and the boat at the time it was picked up was apparently not fishing. It was simply moving into the Canal Zone, for the purpose of attempting to secure medical attention for the crewman. Now I think that, from the very sketchy facts that I have, this could well be, a violation of international law, in that Panama and the ITnit?,d States have a treaty as it relates to the management of the Canal. Zone. And as the people in the audience well know, the United States does have jurisdiction and territorial sovereignty over lands acTacent to the canal itself, and is in control now. My informant, said that apparently the Panamanian Government wants to confiscate $150,000 worth of tuna that is on the fishing vessel. This represents a very serious matter, and one which I think all of us find totally unacceptable. And it also, it seems to me, re-p- resents potentially a threat to our national security, if the Pana. manian Government can decide on its own what vessels can move into the, Canal Zone, and what vessels cannot move into the Canal Zone without threat of being con:fiseated. So I think that it's timely that we have these hearings in Sam Diego, at a, time, when we are in the position where an international incident has been perpetrated within the last 24 hours: The first witness is Congressman Lionel Van Deerbn? Congress- man from San Diego, a very old and good friend of mine. Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 463 STATEMENT OF HON, LIONEL VAN DEERLIN, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE 41ST DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Mr. VAN DEERLIN. I noticed you were calling the hearing to order with a glass ashtray, Mr. Chairman. I thought it would be better to do it this way. [Handing a gavel to Senator Tunney.] Senator TUNNEY. Thanks for that, and thank you very much for being with us this morning. Congressman Van Deerlin is a man i who s not only a very good friend of mine, but a person who is an outstanding legislator, and one with whom I work very closely on many different issues. It's a real pleasure to have you with us, Congressman today. Mr. VAN DEERLIN. We're glad to have you here, Mr. Chairman, because you are presiding over hearings on a matter that we in San Diego would like to see nipped in the bud. It's been a long struggle for this industry that I've had a vantage point of watching for the better part of 40 years. My first job out of college was on the old Scripps-Howard San Diego Sun, before World War II, and I can tell you that at that time--at that point in time, as witnesses before Senate committees are fond of saying? the tuna industry was the most important industry in San Diego. Aerospace was in its infancy then. And this was?and I suppose still is?the tuna capital of the world. But it's difficult in these times to believe that there was a time when there were five tuna canneries operating in San Diego, that this was an expanding industry, an industry which brought new dollars into a community which was otherwise known only as a naval bastion. In World War II the tuna industry suffered its first setback when a great many of the vessels?because of their speed, because of their refrigeration capability, and because of the great seamanship of their owners and crews?were called into service as Navy subsidiary vessels, and were taken off the fishing lanes. The industry responded in a manner that still recalls commenda- tions from old Navy hands. In the late forties and mid fifties the industry was asked to absorb the brunt of building up a fishing in- dustry in Japan as part of the recovery of post-war Japan and we were called upon to submit to quotas and arrangements which gave great preference to Japanese fishing, which could be caught with long-line ships that stayed at sea for months upon months, which were packed in btine and sent in here with trade breaks which America felt it had to extend to this recovering nation of Japan. This created an imbalance which had to be unfair to the Southern California tuna industry. As if this had not been enough, we then went into the era of sub- mitting to unlawful seizures by west coast Latin American nations. And it's an interesting point that the total money that has been paid by San Diego boat owners as a result of fines and illegally- enforced fishing permits in Latin waters?that is, fish within 200 miles?have now reached a total of $6 million. That's $6 million taken out of an industry which has had so much else going against it. Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 4 G4 As if that weren't enough, there were frequent incidents in which our tunaboat owners had to report that the vessels being used by South American navies to come out and fire across their bows, to board them, and to seize them, and to order them into port, were in fact surplus naval vessels from the 11.5. fleet which we not only pro- vided to those nations, but for which we were continuing to provide spare parts. And that was pretty hard for these tax-paying Citizens to 'accept, that their own Government should be contributing to the unlawful attacks and seizures on the high seas. Your Senate Commerce Committee, I think even more respon- sively than sometimes we on the House side were able to do, showed a sympathetic understanding of the plight of this industry. It was your Senate committee which took the lead in assuring that if these unlawful seizures in Latin waters continued that we were going to assess those nations out of foreign aid, or out of military aid, an amount equal to the illegal fines that they imposed on our fishermen. We weren't just going to sit by and see these fines paid without doing something about it., And in amendments to the Fishermen's Protection Act in the late sixties, the Senate taking the lead and the House also joining, passed ignificant legislation which, had the administration followed up with enforcement as it was envisioned by the lawmakers, these sei- zures might have been brought to a halt. Now we have underway to decide, among other things, the ques- tion of what constitutes legitimate fishing limits at a Law of the Seas Conference which is te open in Caracas this summer. For a long time. this Conference has been in the preparation stage, and August Felando, the head of the American Tunaboat Association here, has made many trips to Washington conferring with State Department officials and others in the preparation of the fishing industry's case to be placed before that world tribunal. Now, within a precious few months before that conference is to begin, we're asked to sit by and watch Congress pass a bill which would have the effect of pulling the. rug right out from under this entire industry in the fight that it's made to preserve the sanctity of the international 12-mile limit, a limit which is still observed by the vast majority of maritime nations. This is no time to cave in to the interests of fishing elements else- where in. the United States, however grievously they may feel the intrusion. of Japanese and Russian fishermen in their coastal waters. was delighted when I learned this hearing had been called to ascertain that the name of our California Senator on the Senate Commerce Committee is not listed as a cosponsor of S. 1988. The tuna industry here, believe me, Senator, is well aware of the ready assistance that you provided very recently when they needed, help, in regard to getting adequate fuel supplies to keep their boats sailing. 1 know that you have some fishing interests in northern California which, as soon as tomorrow in San Francisco,, will be importuning you in another direction. I can only note, because so many .things like this do turn on political considerations, that you have in this room a great many politically-activated people?and I don't refer so much to the fishermen as to their wives. These are some of the Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/09/A: CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 best toilers in the political vineyard. They understand the issues, and they understand their interests. As a matter of fact, if this bill passes probably their husbands will be home around November too, and will be out ringing doorbells. I can only tell you that this is bad legislation, offered at the wrong time, not calculated to achieve what it aims to, even for those sections of the fishing industry that it is designed to help. Rather than pushing our own fishing limits out, we should be trying to talk other governments into pulling theirs in. And that's what we're going to be trying to do at Caracas. The purpose of the Law of the Seas Conference is to try to resolve precisely this sort of question, how to make the best and fairest use of territorial waters. It seems to me that Congress now has the op- portunity to practice not just some sound politics, but some real statesmanship. Let's hold off on new legislative moves at least until we can see what the Conference accomplishes this summer. Let's give it a chance. Let's avoid new unilateral actions that could undo the Caracas Conference even before it gets started, as well as creating new and unjustified divisions within the fishing industry. Mr. Chairman, let's begin by scuttling S. 1988. Senator TUNNEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Van Deerlin. One of the points which you raised, which I think I should re- spond to in view of perhaps a misapprehension by the people as to what my position is or will be, is the question of politics of the issue. Insofar as I am concerned, like so many of the other issues in Cali- fornia, there is a substantial split. No matter what side you take you get 50 percent of the people angry at, you. Now, it does so happen that in northern California, in San Fran- cisco, the fishermen in that area are very much in favor of this leg- islation, and they feel, I'm sure, as strongly in favor of the legisla- tion as the tuna fishermen feel opposed to it. So, as is customary in my decisionmaking, I am not going to de- cide this issue on the basis of what I perceive to be the popular viewpoint, but on the basis of what I think is right, on the basis of what I listen to in these hearings and the hearings in San Francisco, and the hearings in Washington, and the hearings that are going to be held in other States. Senator Magnuson is pushing this legislation very strongly. He wants the bill. That does not mean that that is going to have any impact on this Senator's viewpoint. I will base my opinion on the legislation on what I learn at these hearings, and in reading the record of the other hearings. Mr. VAN DEERLTN. Yes. WS perfectly obvious, Mr. Chairman. that for me this is a very simple political issue, just as for you it's a very difficult one. But we cannot realistically ignore the fact that you're going to be tugged from both directions, and I wanted-- Senator TENNEY. That's correct. And there's no way that I can boat it, politically. So the point is, I'm going to do what I think is right. Mr. VAN DEERLIN. Well, I would not have expected anything else. But I would point out that sometimes when you only have 2 or 3 Approved For Release 2001/09/07: CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 466 months to play with, to do nothing is the best politics, and is also doing the right thing. Senator TUNNEY. Well, I appreciate the strong statement that -you've made, Congressman Van Deerlin. There is no question that you are as familiar with the issue as any Congressman, ane you have been a real champion of the tuna fishing industry in Washing- ton, and we're aware of the way you've gone to battle time and time again, and you are most persuasive. I wonder how Congressman Phil Burton from San Francisco is going to be tomorrow in our hearings up there. But I am delighted to have you, and I think you've made a very constructive contribution to these hearings. Thank you. Mr. VAN DEERLIN. Thank you. [The statement follows:] 3rATIMIcNP OF BON. LION ET, VA,F DEERETN, 'U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA Mr. Chairman, as a member of the House Commerce Committee, I have nearly always applauded the work of your Committee, our counterpart with many shared areas of jurisdiction. My appreciation is only heightened by the fact that we on the House side have usually lagged th dealing with many mat- ters, particularly those involving regulated industries. So I come before you, really, as a sort of fan?ready to be persuaded by the rightness of whatever your Committee undertakes to do. Accordingly, I've tried to see my way clear to at least a partial acceptance of S. 1988, the bill you are considering this morning. But t cannot find even one good word for this legislation. It would be an- athema to the prime commercial fishi ng interests in the District which I represent and, in balance, not very good for anyone. S. 1988 might indeed provide a measure of short-term relief for some of the fishermen operating in our northern waters. But over the long haul it would, I am afraid, not only deliver a possible death blow to our own .domestic tuna industry?but would also be bad polities and rotten diplomacy?and possibly not even very helpful to the haddock, herring, and other interests that are crying for relief up north. The legislation before you does not protect the entire fishing industry; nor does it protect the fish. It would certainly do nothing for the conservation agreements for preserving certain species , of tuna in both the Atlantic and the Pacific. If 200-mile national fishing zones were accepted, it follows that the controls for implementing these agreements would be increasingly dictated by narrow national interests, since the fish would then tend to "belong" to specific countries. It should be noted that our tuna fishermen have to go where the tuna are, and generally that's in the warmer waters to the south of us. August Feiando has advised me that more than nine of every ten tuna marketed in the United States actually are caught In foreign waters. And once in tropic waters, the tunaboat usually has to move toward shore, since 78 percent of the fish are taken within 200 miles of the coast. What car. we possibly gain by asserting so extravagant a claim almost on the eve of the Law of the Seas Conference, so highly touted as the appropriate vehicle for negotiating disputes over territorial fishing rights? What will be the position of our own diplomats, if Congress has already gra- tuitously asserted a unilateral claim to a 200-mile coastal fishing zone? As a Congressman from San Diego, I am mindful of the outstanding per- formance of this Committee over the years in affirming the rights of tuna boats and other elements of our domestic fleet which must operate off foreign shores. To a great extent, your Committee was credited for the enactment in 1968 of amendments to the Fishermen's Protective Act which ordered economic re- taliation against Governments that fined our fishing boats for trespassing within their claimed 200 miles of territorial fishing rights. Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 467 If it was wrong last year for Ecuador or Peru to seize a tunaboat 190 miles off the coast?on what legal or moral basis can Congress now insist that the United States undertake precisely the same thing that we have so heated- ly criticized the South Americans for doing in the very recent past? It is obvious that if S. 1988 or similar legislation is enacted in this Con- gress, we can forget about ever negotiating a compromise with Ecuador or Peru. As your Committee well knows, our tuna fishermen have paid a heavy price for the intransigence of some of our off-and-on Good Neighbors to the south. Over the past 18 years the tuna fleet, originating mainly in San Diego and San Pedro, has been forced to pay fines totalling nearly $5 million to Ecuador and Peru. Penalties levied by other countries have brought the total "take" under this peculiar form of extortion to more than six million dollars. Rather than push our own limits out, we should be trying to talk these other governments into pulling theirs in. The purpose of the Law of the Seas Conference is to attempt to resolve precisely this sort of question?how to make the best and fairest use of terri- torial waters. It seems to me that Congress now has the opportunity to practice some statesmanship. Let's hold off any new legislative moves, at least until we can see what the conference accomplishes this summer. Let's give the conference a chance. Let's avoid new unilateral actions that could undo the Caracas con- ference before it even gets started, as well as creating new and unjustified divisions in the fishing industry. Mr. Chairman, let's begin by scuttling S. 1988. Senator TUNNEY. Our next witness is Joanne Heriot, who is going to be representing the San Diego County Board of Supervisors. STATEMENT OF JOANNE HERIOT, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT TO THE SUPERVISOR, THIRD DISTRICT, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, ON BEHALF OF THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Ms. HERIOT. I'm representing the San Diego County Board of Supervisors. The Board extends its apologies for not having a mem- ber of the Board of Supervisors present at this session this morning. I would like to read the following statement: On motion of Supervisor Walsh, seconded by Supervisor Taylor, the Board of Supervisors of San Diego County adopted the following resolution: Whereas, Senator Magnuson, State of Washington, has introduced Federal legislation proposing creation of a national offshore limit of 200 miles, and Whereas, the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors has adopted a resolu- tion in Support of said legislation, and Whereas, based on 1973 values, approximately 80 cents out of every dollar paid to commercial fishermen in California was from tuna landed in Califor- nia, and Whereas, the American Tunaboat Association opposes this legislation based on the opinion that such unilateral action would strain the relationship be- tween the United States and Mexico, and Whereas, under existing international law no state has the right to unilat- erally extend its fishing jurisdiction more than 12 miles from the coast, and Whereas, this action would encourage similar claims by other countries, and Whereas, protection presently extended to United States flag vessels would not be available to those vessels seized by foreign countries within 200 miles of such countries' coastline or islands, if such legislation were enacted, there- fore be it resolved, That the San Diego County Board of Supervisors strongly urges their congressional representatives to actively oppose Senator Magnu- son's legislation, and be it further resolved, That copies of this Resolution be forwarded to President Nixon, Senators Cranston, Tunney, and Magnuson, Congressmen Van Deerlin, Wilson, Veysey, and Burgener, the County Super- visors' Association of California, the American Tunaboat Association, the As- sociation of Pacific Fisheries, and the fifteen (15) coastal counties of Cali- fornia. Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 468 Passed and adopted by the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Diego, State of California, this 9th day of April, 1974, by the following vote: AYES. Supervisors Walsh, Brown, Conde, Bear, and Taylor. Nos. Supervisors None. ABSENT. Supervisors None. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, County of San Diego, ss: I, Porter D. Cremans, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Diego, State of California, hereby certify that I have compared the fore- going copy with the original resolution passed and adopted by said Board, at a regular meeting thereof, at the time and by the vote therein stated, which original resolution is now on file in my office; that the same contains a full, true and correct transcript therefrom and of the whole thereof. Witness my hand and the seal of said Board of Supervisors, this 9th day of April, 1974. (Seal) PORTER I). CREMANS, Clerk of the Board of Superviscrs. By SARA DREW, Deputy. Senator TUNNEY. Thank you very much. I appreciate your taiing the time to represent the Board here this morning. Our next witness is Mr. C. R. Campbell, chairman of the Board of Port Commissioners, San Diego Unified Port District. STATIEMENT OF DON HAGER, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE 'UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT, SAN DIEGO, CAME. Mr. HAGER. Mr. Chairman, I am Don Hager, administrator of the Unified Port District. Mr. Campbell is unable to be here today. 11 have filed a statement with the clerk of your committee, a:ad I won't go into a reproduction of reading this statement over. However, I think that our points are really three in number, and feel, first, that if this legislation is adopted it will surely invoke retaliatory legislation by other countries, particularly in the South American area. And it seems to us that the adoption of this will surely frustrate the deliberations of our delegation to the Law of the Seas Conference in Caracas. This is an industry which has shown some considerable maturity in trying to regulate itself, witnessed by the formation of the Inter- A merican Tropical Tuna Convention. Now, it seems that a police measure adopted by one nation really frustrates continuing develop- ment of that kind of solution to the management of the world's oceans and seas. I think that once a nation takes a position like this that their negotiators then are loathe to sit down at the bargaining table and work out a negotiated solution. We ,feel that a negotiated solution is vastly superior to one which is imposed by one single government. We feel also that this legislation could frustrate to some extent the sports fishing industry and the oceanographic research industry, because they may have a prohibition about vessels engaged in those activities traveling into the waters of neighboring countries. For these reasons we think the legislation should be discarded, or certainly postponed, before it's seriously considered. And, as Con- gressman Van Deerlin said, the Law of the Seas Conference in Ca- racas ought to be given a chance to see what can be worked oht by the people associated with this industry. Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 469 I think it's been pointed out clearly that San Diego, in general, and certainly the port of San Diego in particular, has a very vital interest in the health of this industry which is peculiar to our part of the United States. Senator TUNNEY. Thank you very much. I appreciate your state- ment. [The statement follows:] STATEMENT OF DON L. NAY, PORT DIRECTOR, SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT Mr. Chairman, distinguished Members of the Committee on Commerce: The following represents the position of the San Diego Unified Port District regard- ing the adoption of Senate Bill 1988. The Port of San Diego is opposed to this legislation on the following grounds: First, the establishment of a 200-mile limit by an arbitrary unilateral action at this time would surely provoke similar action by other nations whose off- shore waters are so vital to the continuing health of the United States tuna industry. The Port of San Diego, and Southern California in general, are vitally concerned with the stability of this industry since it is a significant contributor to the economy, tax and employment base of this region. The im- position of a reprisal type limit by other nations would frustrate an industry which has shown considerable capacity for international cooperation and self- regulation. Surely, this is a time for a retreat from isolationism and a positive move forward toward a spirit of internationalism in finding mutually agree- able solutions to the problems of managing the world oceans. It is submitted that once nations adopt an isolationistic position regarding their offshore waters for purposes of controlling fishing, that they are loathe to sit down in good faith at the bargaining table and reach a negotiated agreement regarding fisheries conservation. It is our position that a negotiated solution is far supe- rior to a hastily adopted arbitrary and unilateral police measure. Second, it is the position of the Port of San Diego that the adoption of Senate Bill 1988 will totally frustrate the good faith efforts which have been expended in the past in the formation of the Intertropical Tuna Commission, and will further render the U.S. negotiating team virtually impotent at the Law of the Sea Conference to be held in Caracas, Venezuela, later this year. It is hardly a measure which can be considered an example of responsible leadrship in our international involvement. If for no other reason than this, the legislation should be discarded, or at least postponed, until after a report on the Conference later this year. Third, the enactment of Senate Bill 1988 could very well frustrate the continuing development of Southern California Sportfishing, and hamper the efforts of the developing oceanographic research industry off the West Coast. The retaliatory measures which might be taken by other nations close at hand could very well preclude fishing excursions, whether for sport or for scientific purposes, into the coastal waters of Canada and Mexico. All things considered, the Port of San Diego wishes to bring to the atten- tion of the Senate Committee the position that the enactment of this legisla- tion prior to the conclusion of the Law of the Sea Conference, to be held in Venezuela later this year, is premature. Where problems can be solved by negotiations at the bargaining table, such solutions are eminently superior to measures which may be conceived and adopted unilaterally by a single government. We, therefore, urge that the Committee discourage the progress of any legislation modeled after Senate Bill 1988. Our next witness is Mr. Dean R. Dunphy, president, San Diego Chamber of Commerce, and Dave Parkinson, chairman, Oceanic Council, San Diego Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Felando, are you going to appear with this panel? Mr. FELANDO. just going to be with them. I'm a member of the Chamber of Commerce. Senator TUNNEY. Fine. Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CARDP751300380R000500410005-1 STATEMENT OF DEAN R. DUNPHY, PRESIDENT, SAN DIEGO CHAM- BER OF COMMERCE; ACCOMPANIED BY DAVE PARKINSON, CHAIR- MAN, OCEANIC COUNCIL, SAN DIEGO CHAMBER OF COMMERCE; AND AUGUST FELANDO, GENERAL MANAGER, AMERICAN TUNA- BOAT ASSOCIATION -1)uNviry. -1'm pleased to have with me Dave Parkinson, who is chairman of the Oceanic Council of the San Diego Chamber of Commerce, and Mr. Felando, who, as you know, is the prominent guiding member of that committee. So I asked that they appear with me to provide technical support as required for our testimony. also want to comment that the last time you and I spoke we were talking about the energy crisis. Yon got that settled, and I trust you will be as successful in getting-- Senator TrrNNEy. All by myself. Mr. Dumpily. We would like to read into the record the letter which we addressed to you dated April 16, of which I believe your committee has a copy, Senator, which does represent the unanimous voice of the San Diego Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors' in its position taken most recently. [The letter follows:] THE SAN DIEGO CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, San Diego, Calif., April 16, 1V74. Hon. jOHN TUNNEY. Senator of the State of CaliforWa, Alciv Senate: Office Building, TiTashing ton, D.C. DEAR, SENAToR TT7NNEY : We oppose the enactment of Senate Bill 1988 for the following reasons : SB. 1088 represents a unilateral declaration of jurisdiction by the United States just at a time when the international Law of the Sea Conference com- mences its ;first substantive session. We are of the firm opinion that the pass- age of 811. 1988 would seriously damage the negotiating ability of the U.S. Law of the Sea Delegation and frustrate efforts to effectively settle, on a 'mul- tilateral basis, not only the fisheries issue but, also Issues dealing with scien- tific oeea.n research, pollution, ocean mining, and the right, of free passage. San Diego is not only the principal operational base for the U.S. Tuna Fleet, but is also a significant center for our Nation's effort in ocean research and the home of the Navy's First Fleet. SB. 1988 represents a fisheries position that is different than the United States fisheries proposal presented to the preparatory sessions of the Law of the Sea Conference. We believe SB. 1988 does not protect the U.S. domestic fishing industry as well as such U.S. fisheries proposal. We are informed that important segments of the salmon, shrimp and the -tuna industries do in fact support the U.S. fisheries proposal but are in opposition to SB. 1988. We object to SB. 1988 on the ground that it will not in fact protect the tuna stocks relied upon by the U.S. Tuna Industry. SB. 1988 would cause other countries to unilaterally extend their fisheries jurisdiction. In the past, when countries have claimed a 200 Mile exclusive fishery zone, they have denounced a. treaty establishing a tuna conservation regime. Moreover, SB. 1988 is dia- metrically opposed to the position that the U.S. has taken up to this point when similar action has been enforced against our Tuna Fleet, most notably by Ecuador and Peru. We believe it most important to strengthen the existing conservation regimes established by the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Com- mission and the International Commission' for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas, and not weaken them by the type of action proposed by SB. 1988. We believe that SB. 1988 adversely affects the San Diego Tuna Fleet, and thereby tile entire California Fishing industry, because it would effectively require the U.S. Tuna Fleet to depend wholly upon the grace of foreign gov- ernments for its opportunity to fish tuna in the traditional fishing grounds Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/149/p7 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 established and developed by such Fleet. In 1973, 91% of all tuna landed by U.S. Tuna fishermen were caught within waters beyond the U.S. shores, either in Pacific south of San Diego or in the Atlantic south of Puerto Rico. Only 2% of the tuna caught off U.S. shores was caught within 12 miles. At present, tuna landings in California represents about 80% of the entire landing value of fish and shellfish to the fishermen. It has been estimated for 1973 that the dollar impact of the San Diego Tuna Fleet was $270 million. Many small busi- nessmen and firms are dependent upon the economic viability of the Tuna Industry in San Diego. These concerns range from electronic repair establish- ments, to fuel docks, to shipyards. In 1973 alone, shipyard repairs to commer- cial fishing vessels operating from San Diego was estimated to be about $24 million. SB. 1988 would establish the basis to deny the San Diego Tuna Fleet the right to access to fishing grounds essential to their economic survival. In 1973, the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission estimated that 90.2% of all skipjack tuna and 72.0% of all yellowfln tuna taken within the Commis- sions Yellowfin Regulatory Area was taken within 200 miles of 12 countries and islands bordering such area in the Eastern Pacific. We believe SB. 1988 does not adequately protect fish stocks important to the United States, nor does it adequately protect the U.S. Domestic Fishing in- dustry. It commits the United States to a unilateral course of action exactly at the time when we need to be free of such encumbrance to operate effectively at the forthcoming Law of the Sea Conference. We are also convinced that its passage could fatally damage the U.S. Tuna Industry, and in particular, the Tuna Industry of San Diego. We urge the Committee to oppose the passage of SB. 1988. Sincerely, DEAN R. DUNPHY, President. Mr. DUNPHY. I have these gentlemen with me this morning, Sena- tor, so if there is questioning concerning the technical nature of our testimony, I'll be delighted to have them assist in the response. Senator TUNNEY. It's my understanding that Mr. Felando will be testifying, so I'll reserve any questions until after that. I have a question as it relates to the sports fishery industry in San Diego. How important to the economy of San Diego is sports fisheries? Mr. DUNPHY. Senator, I haven't available to me the specific sta- tistics on the sport fishing industry, except that I could comment that there certainly is a parallel relationship to our entire tourist industry, which is a significant element to San Diego's economy. Many people visiting San Diego are obviously here to enjoy many of the attributes of the community, which include the excellent fish- ing off the shores of the city of San Diego and Baja Calif. Senator TUNNEY. My impression is that the sport fishing industry is important to the city of San Diego, but I don't have any figures on it. Perhaps they could be furnished. Mr. DUNPHY. I think we could do that. Senator TUNNEY. I attended a number of days of hearings in Washington on this legislation, and one of the arguments that was made in favor of it was that if the widespread depredations of our fisheries by foreign governments continued that we would not have a sports fishery industry off the Pacific coast, Atlantic coast, within a relatively short period of time. And I wondered if you could address yourself to that specific problem as it relates to San Diego. Mr. IluNpny. This is a question, I think, despite the fact that you will be talking to Mr. Felando later, that he is perhaps more 35 709 74 pt. 3 2 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 472 aware, of than I, of the ultimate impact of the foreign fishing. in our sport fishing waters. Mr. FELANDo. Senator, I'd like to get into that later on. I think we have abundant statistics, but the point is, I think, as you know, the. border between Mexico and California is very close, and I think you'll find that a significant amount of the fishing done by sports- mea is in fact within the waters of Baja Calif. And not too long ago we did have a seizure of a sport fishing vessel by Mexico. Senator TUNNEY. Within the 12-mile limit? Mr. FELANDo. Within the 12-raile limit. There was a dispute as to the location, but it's reasonably assumed it did occur within 12 miles. Many of the new large sports fishing vessels do spend a great deal of time in waters south, of course dependent on the Movement of the albacore tuna off the coast of Baja" Calif. The fact is, they will have to spend a lot of time off Baja Calif. But I believe this is a very good question, and I think the sports fishing industry in this area could provide you with some informa- tion, and I'm sure the Chamber would be able to gather the s.atistics if you consider it of importance. Senator TUNNEY. I'd like to know what the dollar value is, if it could be estimated, of the sports fishing industry and if the sit- uation in San Diego, as a result of our contiguous relationship with Mexico, is different than in other parts of the country. It's clear that the proponents of this legislation argue that it's inevitable that we're going to lose the sports fishing industry off our coastal waters II less we pass the 200-mile limit. ' Now, with San Diego it may be a different case, because the Mexicans claim a 12?mile limit, and the fear is that if we pass this legislation the Mexicans might well come to a 200-mi1e limit, and that would wipe out sports fishing in Mexican waters. So I wish you would furnish this information to the committee. I?Tr. DUNPHY. And you're specifically asking for the value of sport fishing in the U.S. waters? Senator TITNNEY. Well, I'm asking for the value of the sports fishery industry in San Diego. It would be helpful to also have information as to where that fishing takes place. I would assume that sometimes it takes place off the coast of California. and some- times off the coast of Mexico. would 'assume it would depend on the runs. Some weeks I suppose the captains go out off the coast f Cal ifornia, and some weeks they go off the coast of Mexico, depending where the fish are. So what we would like to have is the value of the sports fishing industry to the San Diego area, and some information as to where the fishing is done and what the impact would be to those people involved in the industry, what the impact would be if this 200-mile limitation legislation was passed, and also if Mexico followed suit and passed it too. Mr. PARKINSON. I'd like to make one comment, Senator. I'll be very glad to get you that information promptly. There may well be other witnesses here today who will have that, Or who will have comments on the sport fishing aspects. Senator TUNNEY. I understand. The reason I'm asking - you is because you are representing the Chamber of Commerce. The Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 473 Chamber of Commerce, it seems to me, would have the ability to draw this information from the business community as effectively ?as any organization. Mr. PARKINSON. That's correct. One further item is that we understand and appreciate the need for the protection of the coastal fisheries, and our various species that are close to the coast. Our main _point in opposing this bill is that this protection needs to be provided by multilateral agreement, and by instituting this 200- mile limit now, several months before the Law of the Seas Con- ference, essentially eliminates a great deal of flexibility in negotiat- ing, a position that we might have at that conference. Senator TUNNEY. Well, the arguments that are made by the pro- ponents of the legislation are that the Law of the Seas Conference has been going on and on, and so far they've only been talking about procedural matters. They haven't been talking about substantive matters. They are going to be talking about substantive matters for the first time this summer, but even if there should be agreement, it's going to take many months, if not years, to reach that agreement, and it would be 1980 to 1985 before ratification. By that time Amer- ican coastal waters will have been stripped and there will be no fish left along the coast. And I might say that many conservation groups testified at our hearings in Washington to that effect, as well. So it is to a Senator like myself who represents both interests? not a black and white issue, but it's one where I would like to have the very best arguments on both sides. And I know that the chamber of commerce in San Diego is very much opposed to the legislation, so I'd like to have your best arguments. It will help in arriving at a judgment. And I think that if you could get us that information relating to the sports fishing it would be quite helpful. And we'll be able, I know, when we speak to the tuna fishermen, to get a detailed appraisal of their view of the impact of the legislation on the tunafishing industry. Mr. Felando is someone who is well known to me and someone whom I respect very much for his intelligence and his energy. I've heard him testify before, and I know what a job he's capable of doing in that area, which is his specific expertise. But it seems to me that the chamber's expertise could well lie in the area of sports fisheries--that is, the impact of this, legislation on that industry. Thank you very much. Our next witness is Congressman Bob Wilson from San Diego. We're very pleased to have you with us this morning, Bob. STATEMENT OF HON. BOB WILSON, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA , Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think that it shows great wisdom on your part to bring these hearings to San Diego, because of the importance of the tuna in- dustry to the city of San Diego, and I applaud you for doing so. I heard you talking with my good colleague, Lionel Van Deerlin, about your political problems involved in this. It seems to me we have to think not only of the political problems?and certainly I Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 474 find it very easy to support the tuna industry, because it's my con- stituency----hut we're also consumers, and consumers across the coun- try are going to be the ones who will suffer if this legislation passes. I have a prepared statement. I will ask your permission, Mr. Chairman, to submit it for the record and make a few brief com- ments on some of the points that have already been made by pre- vious speakers. I think the most important aspect of the problem that; you face, the dilemma that your committee faces, has to do with the eco- nomics of the tuna industry. Tuna is our most important fish prod- uct in the United States. There are more tuna than any other fish product, and I think actually this legislation could price tuna almost out of existence for the average person, and it would become a luxury like caviar rather than a, basic food product, high-protein food product, that it is today. Certainly the sport fishing industry will suffer, not only in San Diego, but in Los Angeles and other areas. As any boatowner knows, it's almost impossible to get a slip up in that area because there are so many boats. And many of them are larger boats that cruise into Mexican waters for the excellent fishing that occurs down there. And it seems quite obvious that if we extend our 200-mile limit,. that other countries will immediately follow. We have been op- posing it and opposing it quite strongly and vigorously, and I be- lieve rightfully. But I believe certainly if we take the lead uni- laterally we can expect other countries?some of which have been claiming it, and we think illegally claiming the 200-mile limit, to then say that we've set the precedent, and we're the largest?or the strongest Nation in the world, and it will certainly immediately cause the other nations to join with us in setting a 200-mile. limit. I think the conservation issue is another one that is of extreme importance. The Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission, and the Atlantic Commission, have parellel responsibility, and I think. have done a remarkable job in setting quotas and in regulating the amount, of fish taken. And I believe if each country cuts out a piece of the shoreline, or jurisdiction out to 200 miles, that it will make the work of the Tuna Commission almost impossible. The tuna doesn't have a home. It doesn't live, as salmon does, close to shore. It isn't the type of fish that?other fishery products. that are caught in close I can understand fishermen being concerned about, but tuna are out in the high seas. And I don't believe its true that 42 percent of all tuna are caught within the 200-mile limit around the world. But no one nation can claim the tuna as its own particular province, because they're :just passing through as they're caught. I really believe a serious mistake would be made by your com- mittee to report this bill out. I recognize that Senator Magnuson has his problems too in the Washington State area, because a lot of fishing is done around there. But it seems to me that we., as a leader in the world, should take the lead at the Law of the Seas Conference, and try to actually work out some kind of legal means of allowing fish to be taken by our tuna fleets and by other fisheries, . rather than_ just. arbitrarily saying that we're going to set a 200-. mile limit. Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/(19/507 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 I would urge you, Senator, to give serious consideration to our problem. And, again, it's easy for me to support my people, but the number of votes of tuna fishermen compared to tuna consumers is infinitesimal. Consumers are everywhere. And I believe you'll find from a political standpoint that if, in fact, by destroying the tuna industry?which, in my opinion, this measure will do?we would price tuna out of the ordinary working man's diet, and we'll have a very serious problem on our hands. I again appreciate your giving me this opportunity .to appear. Senator TuNx-Ey. Thank you. I appreciate your being here, and making your statement. I think you've raised a good point when you say that if we destroy the tunafishing industry there's going to be many millions of people who enjoy tuna?myself included?who are not going to be able to purchase their tuna. And I suppose the question really is Will we destroy the tuna industry? At least, that's one of the ques- tions. I have another question on which you have a degree of expertise, including your many years of service on the House Armed Services Committee. I understand it, Panama claims jurisdiction out to 200 miles, including the Continental Shelf and some adjacent waters, and Panama claims sovereignty over these waters. Now, what do you feel the rights are with respect to Panama's picking up Amer- ican fishing vessels that are going into the Canal Zone? Mr. WILSON. Well, I think that would again be a measure for the Law of the Seas Conference to debate on and to solve, because the Panama Canal and the Suez Canal are, of course, straits. There are some 119 different straits around the world where you have to pass between two land areas fairly close. I think the rights of free passage are pretty well established in international law_, and cer- tainly the rights of tuna boats to come even within the 12-mile limit to make passage through a canal would be pretty fundamental. And I would think the Law of the Sea Conference could resolve this issue as one of the very first, easy issues to resolve. Senator TUNNEY. But it would clearly be illegal under interna- tional law, would it not, for the Panamanian Government to pick up one of our fishing vessels that wasn't fishing at the time, but merely going into the Canal Zone for purposes of treating a crewman who was sick? And isn't there a treaty between Panama and the United States which gives us sovereignty over the Panama Canal Zone? Wouldn't this be a clear violation of international law? Mr. WILSON. Well, in my opinion it would be. International law, itself, is rather unclear and indefinite, admittedly. But certainly history and tradition would play a major part in saying it would be wrong for Panama to take such action. Senator TUNNEY. Well, thank you very much, Congressman Wil- son, for being with us today, and for your statement. I've had a chance to read through it. It's a good statement. [The statement follows:] STATEMENT OF HON. BOB WILSON, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA I'm appearing here today to help and to support the tuna industry of the United States . . . not to bury it. That's why I strongly oppose Senate Bill Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 476 1988, the "interim 'fisheries zones extension and Management Act of 1973." I was among the first to conic out against the bill. The reason is simple. . If this Measure ever became law . . . a death blow would surely be given to? the U. Tuna Industry. The tuna sandwich and the tuna cassetole that we've all come to know and love could very well become faint memories of the pest...too expensive for most of us to enjoy. As tbe world's population continues to increase and meat and grain produc- tion begin to fall behind demand . . . mankind is beginning to realize the huge production capacity of the oceans of the world. In recent years, more and more is being taken from the seas; For instance, in 1966, the world .fish catch was 114 billion pounds. Five years later in 1971 the total was 153 bil- lion pounds of fish valued at some 10 billion dollars. As other countries have copied our advanced fishing techniques competition has become keen. Some nations, namely Ecuador and Peru, have staked out 200--mile territorial limits in an effort to insure themselves of a bigger "take." However, most nations realize that 200-mile fishing zones are not the answer and never will be. It's been the view of the United States that under existing international law no country has the hight to claim waters more than 12 miles from the coast. The Tinted States has never recognized claims greater than 12 miles. However,. II' I he United States enacted a 200-mile ,limit . . . other countries like Mexico, Colombia, and Venezuela would most likely do the same and 42 per cent of the present fishing area in the Pacific would no longer be open to U. S. fish- ermen. The U. S. Tuna Fleet and the California Tuna Industry- would be doomed. Many related industries would also suffer. For instance, here in San Diego :done, the annual dollar volume for ship- yard repairs ranges anywhere from 20 to some 30 million dollars. Snortlishing is a big pastime in the Southern California area and it would be dealt a serious setback if Senate Lill 1988 became law. Mexico, one of the many countries which would establish a 200-mile limit, Would make life anything but pleasant for sportsmen wanting to fish off the Mexican coast. Worldwide, there are 119 straits haat, are open and being used by commer- cial and passenger ocean-going vesse[s. However, that could all chafwe if the nations of the world follow the United States' lead in claiming 200-mile terri- torial rights. In addition, scientific oceanographic research vessels might very wall be denied access to waters off different coastal nations. Senate Bill 1988 would indeed start ninny "tuna wars" since there is no rea- son to believe that other nations would recognize or respect the proposed 200- m1n fishing preserve of the United States. Thus, serious foreign policy prob- lems and enforcement problems wouhl arise. How is the United States going to patrti: the vast expanse of 200 miles of open water? What happehs if we catch other nations fishing in our waters without permits and they refuse to pay fines? I think we'd all agree that America has been involved in more than its share of international disputes. In our :continued search for peace we would just be asking for trouble, headaches and heartaches with the passage of Senate Bill 1988. International agreements or international laws seem the most: logical and peaceful answer to the problems facing the tuna industry. Our best hope in soving the problems seems to lie in the Thirfi United Nations Conference on the Law anrf the Sea. The first session is s,:theduled June 20 to August 29th of this year in Caracas. Venezuela, with 147 countries planning, to take part. During this 10-week session, joint agreement on fish management and conservation programs will be worked out. However, if the United States takes it on itself to establish a 200-mile limit, everything done so far to preserve the tuna will go by the wayside. Nations will set up their own rules and regulations with little regard for other countries. Tuna will be overfished in some areas and underlished in others. Existing regulations and conservation efforts would no linger be effective. The Inter-American Tropical Tufm (70mmission, for exomple. and 1.1,9 Inter- national Commission for the Conservation of the Atlantic Tuna.s 1-n,ve done much in an effort to insure that the natural resources of the sea are preserved and managed properly. But, both of these respected conservation organiza- tions would virtually be "killed off" by the 200-mile limit. Tana have no home . . they swim the waters of the world following food supplies and likewise that's how the U.S. Fishing fleet must operate . . Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/049./fl7 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 going to where the tunas are. However, if there are a series of jealousy guarded 200-mile zones, it's going to be almost impossible to get the job clone. Toes will most likely be stepped on . . . international incidents are sure to grow in number and conservation efforts would be left to the whim of indi- vidual nations. The end result may possibly mean the eventual destruction of the tuna resources of the world . . . something that none of us want to see. To harvest the maximum yield from the seas requires the cooperation of all countries Mutual conservation efforts, habitat studies and fishing limits will benefit us all. It makes no sense at all for the Government of the United States to open a Pandora's Box of troubles. Much stands to be lost and nothing gained. In summary, Senate Bill 1988 is nothing but a problem-maker. First, it would invite other nations to retaliate against the United States by also establishing 200-mile fishing preserves from which American boats will be excluded. Second, the United States will be leaving itself wide open for international disputes and incidents when foreign fishing vessels refuse to observe the 200-mile limit and cross into our waters. Third, the supply of tuna in the United States would decrease and the price would skyrocket higher than ever. Fourth, there would be no worldwide tuna conservation programs or research efforts . . . the result would have disasterous effects on nature, not to mention certain U.S. industries. And finally, the U.S. Tuna Fleet, which is already fighting for its life against higher operating costs and competition from other countries, would be pushed toward extinction. As the world in which we live gets smaller . . it's becoming increasingly obvious that only through international agreements and cooperation can the goal of peaceful coexistence be reached. The tuna fishing industry of the United States must be helped and sup- ported, not legislated out of business. ? Senator TIINNEY. Our next witnesses are going to appear as a panel. Mr. August Felando, Mr. Lester Balinger, executive secre- tary, American Tuna Sales Association, and Mr. Anthony Pisano, general manager, Fishermen's Cooperative Association. STATEMENTS OF AUGUST FELANDO, GENERAL MANAGER, AMERI- CAN TUNABOAT ASSOCIATION; LESTER BALINGER, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, AMERICAN TUNA SALES ASSOCIATION; AND AN- THONY PISANO, GENERAL MANAGER, FISHERMAN'S COOPERA- TIVE ASSOCIATION Mr. FELANDO. Thank you very much, Senator. I'm August Felando, general manager of the American Tunaboat Association. The American Tunaboat Association is a nonprofit fish- ing cooperative organized in the State of California, and has been in existence since 1923. The membership is comprised exclusively of U.S. flag tuna fishing vessel owners. I have provided the committee with a copy of my statement, I believe the day before yesterday. In addition, I have for the com- mittee a letter from the Propeller Club of the United States, Port of San Diego, opposing the legislation. I'd like to have this letter inserted in the hearino. record. Senator TUNNEY. Your statement and the letter will be included in the record, and I hop ' e, Mr. Felando that perhaps you could i briefly summarize what's n it, so I can ask you some questions. We do have your statement, and have had it for the last 2 days, which has given the committee an opportunity to work up some pretty good questions?and we know how well you've answered questions? and we'd like to have the opportunity to have some time to go into that kind of colloquy with you. Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 478 Mr. FELANDo. Yes. The statement was prepared for the purpose of providing the committee with background. It's an extensive state- ment, something over 7,000 words, with tables and everything else. In adctlion, the statement refers to certain documents that I will now provide to the committee, namely, a statement of posi.tior. of the United States particularly with respect to salmon and tuna, that was inserted in the record of the T",-.N. Preparatory Committee of the Law of the Seas Conference. In addition, some other charts and tables, a copy of the latest Ecuadorian law relating not only to fish- ing vessels, but to vessels for tourism and scientific research, and in addition, a compilation of all the seizures that have taken place since 1961. I think it's important that these documents be made part of the record. Senator TrristNny. They will be. , Mr. FELANDO. Before I get intO my statement, an incident oc- curred yesterday that the Senator made reference to earlier in this hearing? I would like to set the facts of this incident for the pur- poses of the record. Yesterday morning?and, Senator Tunney, this is the way typ- ically it happens?I received an early telephone call from Panama informing me that the tuna vessel Rafaella was seized by two Pan- amanian patrol vessels about 15 minutes after midnight on the 17th of April. The vessel Rafaello was proceeding towards the Canal Zone for the purpose of taking the cook, who had been passing blood and the belief was that he had internal bleeding, and it was necessary for him to go to port for the purpose of receiving med- ical treatment. The skipper had talked with the manager-owner in San Diego, and the manager-owner instructed the skipper to take him to the nearest port, which was the Canal Zone. The vessel was proceeding off Cape Mala when it was intercepted and boarded. The Pana- manian boarding officers examined the log book of the Rafaello and detected the fact that vessel had been fishing off Panama some 80 to 90 miles, either on the 16th or 15th. On the basis of that information the Rafaello was seized and is presently in Panama under seizure. We were informed this morning that there is a possibility that the vessel's cargo of 300 tons of tuna would be confiscated, and that fines will be imposed. 1Tnder the law, namely the Fishermen's Protective Act of' 1967, as amended, the Secretary of State has an obligation to obtain the prompt release of a vessel and crew, and to attend to the welfare of the crew of the ship. On the basis of information that I've received so far, we do not el eve that this obligation is being properly performed by rep7esent- atives of the Department cif State in the Canal Zone. This is based on the information that we received this morning. We hope that this information is incorrect. think the incident of the Rafaello illustrates one of the basic problems of S. 1988, a problem which some people forget. They Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/0M7 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 assume that the doctrine of innocent passage applies to all flag- vessels. This incident of a tuna vessel going into port for the pur- pose of providing medical assistance to one of its crewrnembers, who is either ill or injured, and then a seizure follows, is not new to us. Unfortunately, many of the wives in this audience know of inci- dents that have happened in the past to them. This is not a shocking incident to us, only insofar as it's happened too often in the past. In addition to the Rafaello, we've received reports that Pana- manian vessels chased another vessel, the Gemini, in addition to the tuna vessel, Pan Pacific, which hit a reef off one of the islands near Costa Rica last Thursday night, damaging its bow, and at one point the crew had to abandon the vessel. The skipper was able to save the vessel. The vessel was proceeding to the Canal Zone for the purpose of going to the shipyard at Cristobal. This vessel was boarded. Fortunately there were no logbook entries that persuaded the Panamanian Government to seize that vessel. Panama claims a 200-mile territorial sea. Now, I'd like to proceed into just a summary of my statement. It's an extremely long statement, and I expect to testify next week in Washington, D.C., and at that time I will go into more details of the statement. The American Tunaboat Association opposes the passage of S. 1988 because: (1) It adversely affects existing treaties that provide for the rational use and conservation of tunas presently harvested by our members in the eastern Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, because (2) it adversely affects the opportunity of our Government to strengthen such existing tuna conservation regimes or to create new international conservation organizations to manage the tunas, and because (3) contrary to its announced purpose, it denies protection to the U.S. tuna industry, particularly the U.S.-flag tuna fleet op- erating in waters beyond the jurisdiction of the United States. I go into an analysis of S. 1988, but I think the objective of S. 1988 is twofold: (1) It attempts to protect the fish of interest to the United States; that is, to protect the fish from overfishing. Second, it attempts to protect the U.S. domestic fishing industry. My statement attempts to show that in fact S. 1988 does not pro- tect the fish?does not protect the fish from overfishing, 111 particular with respect to the conservation of the tunas. We believe that it is well recognized that the tunas as a species of fish that cannot be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of any one nation, let alone the United States. This is because of the unique biological characteristics of the tunas. The ocean distribution and life history of the tunas reveal that their populations range over extensive ocean areas, that they undertake long migrations and are of high mobility. This point has been extensively and specially documented by the U.S. delegation to the U.N. committee that was organized to prepare for the Law of the Seas Conference. One of the documents I have submitted to this committee provides this information. Congress has also upheld the special characterization of the tunas, and the need to have an international fisheries organization approach Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP751300380R000500410005-1 480 towards the conservation and management of the tunas. I refer to the treaties and implementing legislation connected with the Inter- American Tropical Tuna Commission and the International Com- mission for the Conservation of the Atlantic Tunas. The point is, essential to the conservation and management of the tunas is international cooperation. Without that, we have no con- servation. The question is: Does S. 1988 affect the existing com- missions that conserve the tunas, and does it promote the concept of international cooperation towards the management of the fish? Now, from the language contained in sections 5 and 11 of S. 1988 it can be asserted correctly?and Senator Magnuson has made this point in the hearings?that S. 1988 does not force the with- drawal of the I-Tnited States from the two treaties that have estab- lished international fisheries organizations to deal with conserva- tion and management of tunas. We agree with this interpretation but the real question is whether S. 1988,. in establishing a 200-mile exclusive fishing zone off the coast and islands of the United States will have an adverse impact OR the future existence and operation of the?let's say the Pacific Tuna Cornmisson and the Atlantic Tuna Commission. What will. be the reactions of the other countries who are members of these organizations? Will these organizations be able to .implement effec- tive conservation measures? Will these organizations be able to attract new members? These are the critical questions. In our opinion, S. 1988 will destroy the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission and the International Commission for the Con- servation of the Atlantic Tunas, and will make the creation of new international fisheries organizations dealing with the conser- vation of tunas an impossible dream. This opinion is supported by factual information developed during the 25-year history of the .Enter.inerican Tropical Tuna Commission. At present eight countries are members of the TATTC, namely, Canada, Costa Rica, France, Japan, Mexico Nicaragua, Panama, and the United States. Up until last Thursday, at least, Panama and the other countries had never enforced a 200-mile exclusive fishing zone. None of these counr,ries enforce a requirement that all foreign flag fis-ning vessels must have a tuna fishing license as a condition to fish beyond the 12?mile limit. l'?,vo countries have; aggressively enforced an exclusive 200-mile limit, against U.S.-flaa vessels off their coasts and islands :in the eastern Pacific; namely, Ecuador and Peru. Ecuador joined the Pacific Tuna. Commission in 1961, and then after amending its constitution to establish a 200-mile territorial sea, Ecuador denounced the treaty and left the Commission in August of 1968. Peru has always refused to join the Pacific Tuna Commission, on the ground that participation in such international organization -would derogate its 200-mile exclusive fishing zone. Thus, we have the experience in the Pacific where countries use 200-mile exclusive fishery zone to get out of multilateral agree- ments, such as Ecuador, or to refuse to join such arrangements; as in the case of Peru. Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/09/07: CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 481 In recent years, as a. participant to the annual meetings of the Pacific Tuna Commission, I have witnessed representatives of mem- ber countries to the Pacific Tuna Commission use the threat of denouncing the Pacific Tuna Commission and of establishing a 200- mile exclusive fishing zone. Thus we have good reasons supporting our belief that if S. 1988 becomes law, other member countries of the Pacific and Atlantic 'Tuna Commissions will also declare immediate unilateral exten- sions of exclusive fishery zones of 200 or more nautical miles. They have been voicing this as a possibility. S. 1988 will give them the .excuse to act and the reason to explain their actions. The next question is whether the, Pacific Tuna Commission and -the Atlantic Tuna Commission would be able to function in an effective manner over a fishery that is subject to 200-mile exclusive fishing zones. The Pacific Tuna Commission made a special study? 'established a working group to determine the impact of the 200- mile exclusive fishing zone, and they concluded as follows: That the Yellowfin tuna stock cannot be managed effectively without the 'cooperative efforts of all countries fishing the eastern Pacific, both inside and outside the 200-mile zones. The only international fish- eries organization composed of countries who each claim a 200-mile fishery zone is the South Pacific Commission. Chile, Ecuador, and Peru are the only members of this Commission. This Commission is a total failure as a conservation and management organization. Besides using the South Pacific Commission as a measure of evaluating the impact of 200-mile exclusive fishing zones on the Pacific and Atlantic Tuna Commissions the reality of the new rules 'of access to fishing grounds offers reasons to support our belief that the Pacific and Atlantic Tuna Commissions will not be able to con- tinue to implement effective conservation measures on the tunas. Now, Senator, I have a chart that's attached to this statement. It goes into detail as to the catch of the tropical tunas within 200 miles of 12 countries in the eastern Pacific. It indicates the per- centages. For instance, in 1973, 72 percent of all the yellowfin tuna in the Commission regulatory area was caught within 200 miles; that '95.2 percent of all the skipjack caught within the Commission's regulatory area was caught within 200 miles. The other point is this: If you look at tables 1 and 2, where we have, based on the Pacific Tuna Commission's data, indicated to you where the fish were caught off these 12 countries. You'll find that there's a tremendous tonnage of tuna caught within 200 miles. Now, if you'll turn to table 2 you'll find that the amount of ton- nage caught within 12 miles is relatively insignificant. What this means is as follows: With the new rules of access we .are going to be faced with the fact that off the United States, in a 7-year period, a total of 100 tons of the tropical tuna was caught off the United States. Yet, in that same period of time the total catch in the Commission regulatory area for a 7-year period was 1,441,122 tons. Thus, we believe that the right to exclusive access to little or to some or to much or to none of the tunas within the 200?mile ex- clusive fishing zone will have a tremendous impact on the political Approved For Release 2001/09/07: CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 482 will of a country to seek international cooperation via an interna- tional fisheries organization. Our experience is that the impact has not been adverse .on the spirit of international cooperation if the right to deny access is limited to a 12-mile exclusive fishing zone. S. 1988 will change the ball game, because the legal right of access to the tunas will 'change as well as the legal right of transit within 2.1-million square miles of the fishing grounds regulated by the Pacific Tuna Commission. In this respect, therefore, we strongly believe that S. 1938 does not protect the U.S. tuna industry. It in fact does a disservice to our country and to the principle of conservation and management of fishing resources. S. 1988 would represent a stab in the back to the conservation regimes established by the Inter-Americatt Trop- ical Tuna Commission and the International Commission for the Atlantic Tunas, and also to the future actions to strengthen such organizations or to create new international conservation organiza- tions dealing with the tunas. Now, I haven't gone into detail', as to what happened in the At- lantic. The fact is that almost 100 percent of our catch is caught within 200 miles. Now I've gone into the adverse impact just on two Commissions created by two international treaties, in my state- ment. I'd like to point out to the Senator that I think that this la w creates a direct conflict with the highest law of the la:ad, one of the treaties; in fact, three of the four treaties that were signed by this country in 1958. I won't go into detail on that. lint think that the other point about this fact is that here we are, through S. 1988, creating tt law that is completely contrary to existing treaties that this country has signed. What this dues, in my opinion, is send a signal to other countries that reads, really, "We aren't interested in international cooperation." And without international cooperation, Senator, you will kill the tunas. And yet, S. 1988 says we will protect the fish from overashing. I think it's an illusion?a grand illusion. And I think it's something that the Senator should carefully reflect upon. And I think it's incorrect for those who support the legislation to say that S. 1988 will protect the fish. For tuna, it: destroys the fish. Now, I'd like to point out another position that's rather different, but as other speakers have stated, S. 1988 represents a unilateral declaration of jurisdiction. And it has been the traditional position of the United States that it does :not recognize any unilateral ex- tension of either the territorial sea or zones of exclusive fishing rights. The fact that this Nation ,is undertaking an effort to help resolve the Law of the Seas by -participating in the -United Nations Conference is evidence of its policy against unilateral extensions of sovereignty or jurisdiction. The experience of the -U.S. tuna fleet off Ecuador and Peru in suffering through 203 illegal high-seas seizures and many harassment incidents since 1961 is based upon the posi- tion that the 'United States does not recognize unilateral extensions. We agree with John Norton Moore, Chairman, the National Se- curity Council Interagency Task Force on the Law of the Sea, and Deputy Special Representative of the President for the Law of the Sit Conference, when he presented the views of the excutive branch on S. 1988: Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/R/T7 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 A unilateral declaration of fisheries jurisdiction at this time could seriously undermine our efforts in the Law of the Sea Conference and greatly hamper the chances for a satisfactory settlement of the fisheries question on a multi- lateral basis. Since the summer of 1971 I have attended all preparatory con- ferences held by the United Nations Committee preparing for the Law of the Sea Conference?and I underline, "preparatory con- ference"?and I have participated both as one of four fisheries experts to the U.S. delegation to such U.S. Committee, and as ad- visor to the Department of State Law of the *Sea Advisory Com- mittee. I agree completely with Mr. Moore's evaluation of the impact of S. 1988 on the Law of the Sea Conference, and I'm sorry to have to say this. S. 1988 represents such a reversal of traditional policies by the United States, such an apparent breach of existinff. treaties, conven- tions and agreements entered into by the United States, and such a contrast to what has been proposed and offered by the U.S. Law of the Sea Delegation, that it appears obvious to us that S. 1988? and I'm also sorry to say this?characterizes the United States as a country that can't be trusted or believed. S. 1988 represents action that subjects the United States to a well-founded charge of inter- national bad faith. It seems to me that taking the argument that we need interna- tional cooperation to properly conserve and manage tuna can't be disputed, and yet S. 1988 says that it attempts to conserve and manage fisheries, while laying the groundwork for the destruction of international cooperation. I think other speakers will get into the area of how, technically, the fact that that map up there which everyone has become very familiar with?and in my statement I have another chart, a very long one, Senator, that just talks about the middle latitudes of the world. We're talking about the allocation of the world's oceans to an extent that most people can't visualize. It's hard to visualize an area of the ocean equal to the total land mass of the world today would be withdrawn, taking 118 coastal nations. The Geographer of the Department of State talks about the fact that over 24 million square miles will be withdrawn. We estimate roughly that about 6.7 million square miles would be denied to us under the 200-mile limit for fishing purposes. Just take a look at the fact that Micro- nesia alone would have an ocean area under its jurisdiction greater than the size of the continental United States, or about 3.1 million square miles. And yet, here's Micronesia with a total land area of 700 square miles. Should S. 1988 become law I would have to tell every member of our association that the Fishermen's Protective Act, as amended, would not apply to a case in which a U.S. flag vessel had. been seized within 200 miles of the coast or island of any country, and I would have to tell them that the Fishermen's Protective Act of 1067, as amended, would not apply to a case in which a U.S. flag fishing vessel had been seized while navigating or in transit, as distinguished from fishing?and I remind you of the Rafaello case?and if they had made such a transit within 200 miles, because they would have to follow the local rules published by that coastal state to establish its Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 484 passage. And this is because of the convention that this country signed in 1958, that distinguishes the fact that fishing vessels do not have the concept of innocent passage if they do not observe the laws and, regulations of the coastal state. Now, at a later time I believe someone will get into the eco- nomics of the tuna industry. At first I thought I would try to list the very impressive figures of the significance of tuna in the California fishing industry. I think it's there, and I think other people will repeat this. I believe a special economic report concerning the im- pact of this legislation on the tuna industry will be provided the Senator. I would point out the fact that tuna represents about 23 percent of the total fishing industry of the United States, in terms. of value. The tuna fleet alone?just of 149 vessels?represents about one-sixth of the total gross tonnage of the entire fishing of the entire TTnited States. I point out the fact that shrimp, salmon, and tuna, which repre- sent the elements of the fishing industry that will be, hurt, and who oppose this legislation, represeut about 50 percent of the landed' value of all fisheries for 1972. The fact is that 91 percent of all the tuna that was landed by all fishermen in the United States in 1.973 was caught beyond U.S. shores. Without the opportunity to. fish ofr other coasts we believe this industry will be destroyed. We understand that this is contrary to the purpose of S. 1988. We have been told that S. 1988 is being designed to protect the U.S. fis:aing industry. Without going into all the details, Senator, I think we can demonstrate abundantly that in fact the tuna in- dustry, as we know it, will be destroyed. It's somewhat ironic to me that we're having this hearing in San Diego in Portuguese Hall, Point Loma. Now the industry started around 1903. The canned tuna industry is a unique industry to the United States. It was started by Californians. It was started because of the disappearance of the sardines off the coast of Cali- fornia around the turn of the century. At the present time, 74 percent of all the canned fishery products consumed in the United' States, in terms of value, i3 canned. tuna. According to the National Marine Fisheries Service, M percent of the consumption of fish in the United States is represented by tuna. I think .this is the first time we've ever had the Senate Com- merce Committee appear in San Diego. We've had enough prob- lems, perhaps, to require their presence in the past. I thank the Senator very much for coining to San Diego to permit us to have the opportunity to develop some of the facts regarding the impact. of S. 1988. We have raised some serious questions about the urgency, and the emergency nature of S. 1988, and I think other speakers will get into this area and hopefully answer some of the questions that you will raise. Senator, we believe that, conti.ary to the purposes of S. 1988, it will not save fish from overfishing, particularly as to tuna. It will not protect U.S. domestic fishing industries. Because we know, and we can demonstrate, that because of the fact that significant ele- ments of the salmon, shrimp and particularly the tuna industry,, will be adversely affected. Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/0M7 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 For these reasons we oppose the enactment of S. 1988. Thank you very much. Senator TUNNEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Felando. Would you identify your colleagues, please? Mr. PISANO. I'm Anthony Pisano. I am the general manager of the Fishermen's Cooperative Association, an organization of fishing boat owners founded in 1927 in San Pedro, Calif. The Fishermen's Cooperative Association is a nonprofit coopera- tive marketing association operating under the Fish Marketing Act of the State of California. The membership of the Association of about 40 purse seiners is comprised exclusively of boats under 300 tons gross capacity. Our boats are what we in the industry commonly call "combination" fishing boats; that is, part of the year these boats fish for tuna and timalike species and part of the year they fish for wetfish off the coast of Southern California. By wetfish, we mean anchovies, sar- dines, mackeral and squid, brought in fresh and wet; thus the name wetfish. We are appearing here today in opposition to S. 1988, a bill to extend, on an interim basis, the jurisdiction of the United States over certain ocean areas and fish in order to protect the domestic fishing industry and for other purposes. Mr. Chairman, we are an association of small purse seiners and we will make a brief statement. We generally oppose this legislation for the same reasons expounded by the American Tunaboat Asso- ciation, and we support their statement. In order not to take too much of your time we will not expand on the same reasons, but limit our opposition to one or two basic objections. Our basic objections to this bill may surprise you and may even perplex you. Some people may interpret it as being far out, wild, a figment of our imagination, but to us, because of past experience, we fear it is a reality. S. 1988 purports to protect the U.S. fishing industry, and con- sequently its fishermen, by extending the United States contiguous fishery zone from the present 9 nautical miles to 197 nautical miles. We strongly believe that the establishment of a contiguous fishery zone by the U.S. Congress has given ideas to State agencies by providing them with a vehicle on how to regulate U.S. citizens be- yond the 3 nautical mile territorial seas of the United States. Before Public Law 89-658 was passed in October 1966, which established a contiguous fishery zone extending the U.S. boundary seaward to 12 nautical miles, we were always regulated only within the 3-mile limit of the U.S. territorial seas. We believe this was because at that time no one thought or had in mind anything beyond the 3 miles jurisdiction. But what has happened since 1966? 1. In March of 1970, with no scientific or other proof that a specie of fish was overfished or in danger of being overfished?as a matter of fact, to the contrary, the actual scientific evidence was that this fishery was fished way below the minimum sustainable yield and the stocks were very healthy?we were ordered by a State agency to fish for this specie only outside the 12 nautical miles from the contour of the coast of southern California. Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 486 2. Again this year, in March 1974, under the same. circumstances and the same facts, we were again pushed out beyond the 12?mi1e limit. The point we are trying to make is that we are certain the con- tiguous fishery zone had started people thinking?although these people may deny it?about regulating the U.S. citizen from the pre- vious 3 nautical mile territorial seas to the 12 nautical mile conti- guous fishery 7one. This is why we are very fearful that if the contiguous fishery zone is extended beyond the present 12 nautical miles, people will be influenced by those ideas and Will think along the lines of placing control within these boundaries on the U.S. citizen. These are not idle fears. We have well-grounded reasons to be- lieve that we have not been regulated further out than 12 miles because of the limitation contained in the present contiguous fishery zone. At this point we would like to state that we do not want to give the impression that we are against conservation. To the contrary, we support needed conservation of fish species. In fact, in the past few years we have not opposed but have supported State legislation that has placed a complet moratorium on two species of fish, the sardine and the Pacific mackerel. Mr. Chairman, at this time we respectfully request that legisla- tion regirding the establishment; of a new contiguous U.S. fishery zone to protect the domestic fishing industry and its fishermen, whether it be a Federal statute already in effect or one that is being considered now, should contain a provision prohibiting any State agency to exclude U.S. citizens from fishing in that zone for polit- ical or other reasons, unless supported by scientific and practical evidence that the stocks of a specie of fish are overfished and in danger of being seriously depleted. As stated above, our boats, in order to augment their income and to be able to exist, must fish for .tuna and tunalike species part of the year. Being small in tonnage and of a limited range, they fish only off the west coast of Mexico. Because of weather condi- tions and their size they cannot venture too far out at sea. We are Sure that the passage of S. 1988 by the U.S. Congress will give Mexico the impetus to take similar action and probably before the time the Law of the Sea Conference is held. Once this occurs, we are fearful the already very restrictive pres- ent method of Mexican licensing will go out the window at the same time. None of our boats are capable of fishing outside of 200 miles, arid without the tuna catch to augment our income, a certain demise is in prospect for most of us. For these reasons we oppose the passage of S. 1988 at this time. Thank you. Senator TUNNEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Pisano. Mr. BALINGER. Pm Lester Ba Finger. Pm executive secretary of America:n Tuna Sales Association. We take care of the sales of approximately 95 percent of the fish that are caught by American flag vessels. I would like at this time to say that I have read Augie Felando's statement several times, and I think it's just a tremendous statement. Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/W7 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 I agree wholeheartedly with the statement. He has presented nu- merous figures that he wasn't able to go into here today, but which you have. And he has references, and has documented all those figures for your perusal. I think one point that I would like to make is that, if you'll notice, that 72 percent of the tuna that is caught by American-flag vessels within the 200-mile zone, and that 91 percent of it is skip- jack that is caught within this 200-mile zone that we're talking about, and all of this is delivered to American canneries. Now, while you might think the price of tuna is high in the can, this is the cheapest source of raw material that the canner has. If they lose this source, and this source of supply gets in the hands of other countries that are claiming 200 miles?and they will?this fleet will either have to register to these foreign countries and fish for them, or go out of business. So the price of this fish to the consumer, as we know it today? as one other gentleman said here previously, it will be for the very few, such as caviar or something like that, instead of the very high- protein, cheap, comparatively, fish that it is today, for the working people. And I think that in concurring wholewheartedly with Augie's statement and supporting him 100 percent, and with the lack of time, I didn't prepare a statement, because I felt it would just be repeti- tious. I think Augie covered the situation very well. Thank you very much. Senator TUNNEY. Thank you, Mr. Balinger. I might point out, Mr. Felando, that since we talked on the phone this morning with respect to that vessel, I sent a telegram to the Secretary of State asking that the Secretary do all that the State Department can do to assure that the vessel and its crew are assisted. And I have a confirmation from Mr. Stuart Blow, that they have sent a cable to our consul in Panama to take expeditious action to guarantee the safety of the men aboard the ship and to protect the boat and its cargo. The State Department will keep our office in- formed of the latest de veloments. We should by this afternoon have a report on what counsel has been able to do. I would assume that you would also have a report from your own sources. Mr. FELANDO. Thank you very much, Senator. Senator TUNNEY. Now, with respect to some of the issues, I know you're going to be testifying in Washington again on this issue, and I suppose that if forces in favor of the legislation were not so strong, that this legislation would have been buried long ago. But clearly, as you know, the forces are very strong in favor of it. And whereas this might, in the atmosphere of San Diego, seem somewhat pre- posterous, ludicrous, or unbelievable, the facts are that in other parts of the country there is very strong support for the bill. So the questions that I'm directing at you today are for the pur- pose of developing as full a record as possible, and I want you to know that I genuinely have kept my mind open on the issue, pur- posely, and Irefuse to allow myself to develop a bias one way or the other until I have had an opportunity to hold these hearings in California, both in San Diego and in San Francisco, where I'm going to be hearing entirely different stories. 36-709-74?pt. 3-3 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/09/07: CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 188 So there is no bias that is suggested in any of the questions, de- spite the fact that they may appear at times to be contentious. It's for pm-poses, as I indicated, of being the devil's advocate, and in developing the record. Now, since Ecuador and Peru already have a 200-mile limit, what real effect will a U.S. declaration of 200 miles have? Mr. FELANno. No. 1, the effect will be as was stated earlier, that other countries, particularly Mexico, particularly the Central Ameri- can countries, will announce 200-mile exclusive fishing zones. Now, the reason we say that is because of what happened in October, 1966, with respect to the law to establish a contiguous fishing zone of 9 miles. 'Within weeks after the law was passed in 1966, Mexico es- tablished a contiguous zone of 3 miles. Its position has always been a 9-mile, territorial sea. And so they established a 3-mile contiguous zone, of 9 plus 3. So they went out to 12 miles. Their law provided that a treaty could be negotiated with most countries for fishing within the contiguous zone, but that after 5 years no fishing would be permitted under any treaty. or agreement with any foreign fisheries. A treaty was negotiated with Mexico in 1967. The treaty ended in 1973, January, 1973. There was no agreement between the United States and MeKico that allows U.S. fishermen to fish within 12 miles. We think that Mexico would do the same thing that they did in 1966. They will announce a 200-mite fishing zone. In addition, we think other countries will do the same thing. As indicated in our table covering at least the Eastern Pacific, the amount of fish that will be allocated under this 200?mile zone would be so substantial to those countries that they would see no reason to be members of any international cooperative effort to manage the tunas. We say this because of What Ecuador and what Peru have done. We feel, therefore, the Commission which has been in existence since 1949, and managing fisheries since 1966, will go out of busi- ness. And, in addition, the opportunity for any U.S.-flag vessel to fish within 200 miles would be denied, or phased out, within a short period of time. Now, the fact is that with the support of the U.S. Government in its position of the 12-mile limit or jurisdiction, our vessels are able to take the chance of seizures. We believe the resistance of the United States to Ecuador's and Peru's claims here now for decades has somewhat contained the 200-mile problem. We think the fact that right now we're having hearings on 200-mile legislation, my personal opinion, might have a lot to do with the fact. that we're starting to get now aggressive action by Panama to seize our ves- sels within their 200-mile. territory. So far, the United States has resisted these efforts. In the past we've been able to contain the problem. Some countries have claimed 200 miles, but they have not enforced it. I've just talked about the Pacific. I think also the same thing will occur, the same pattern will occur, in West Africa. They have nothing to ' TS TS n 0 < M LISTING OF SEIZURES OF U.S. TUNA CLIPPERS 1961-68, BY DATES OF SEIZURE AND RELEASE, FINES AND OTHER COSTS PAID, CLAIM HISTORY, AND GENERAL REMARKS?Continued a m Days 0 Official not Date claim filed , acknowledged, -s Name of vessel number Seizure date Release date fishing Foreign country Costs certified, paid General remarks X M Evelyn R 230 063 Sept. 10,1962 Sept. 13,1962 4 Ecuador: Vessel entered port and was then seized. No (7) Fine None seizing vessel. Location was Galapagos Islands. 0 None Cl) License Matricide. NoneM --- Other NA n.) Western Ace 263 848 Oct. 28, 1962 Nov. 1,1962 5 Peru: Vessel fish when boarded by armed soldiers cs Fine 5, 000. CA Filed NA from Peruvian warship, "Angel," about 11 miles 0 li Matriculac e n s e None Acknowledged NA off Peru, at 03? 50' south latitude, 81?08' west ?s, None Certified NA longitude. Other Peru: NA Paid NA 8 5 Chicken of the Sea 248 779 do do Vessel fishing when seized and boarded by Peruvian co 10, 000. 00 Filed NA warship," Angel," about 11 miles off coast of 8 li:zr? NA Acknowledged NA Pera, at 03'W iiiilli ;Allude, 8 i?08' west Matricula NA Certified NA longitude. '*?1 Other Elsinore 271 940 Nov. 18, 1962 Nov. 18,1962 1 Ecuador: NA Paid NA CO .. Vessel fishing north of Cape Berkely, San Isabella .....g 0 Fine License None (Galapagos Islands). Name of seizing vessel not az 5 Nor,e available. Matricula None i3 Other None Larry Roe 278 930 Nov. 1962 Nov. 1962 1 Ecuador: Vessel fishing when seized by Ecuadorean warship 0 Fine 15?N O Te off Wreck Bay, San Cristobal, Galapagos Islands -0 License MatricideNone '*?1 Other ol San Juan 289 819 May 22, 1963 May 22,1963 1 Ecuador: Vessel fishing when seized by Ecuadorean warship CO Fine NN000nnne: about 8 miles off Manta, at 00?44' south latitude, o License N Matricula None 88?53' west longitude, ship's document con- 0 warted. C.4 Other03 None o X Ranger 253 538 May 25, 1963 lune 11, 1963 18 Ecuador: Vessel fishing when seized by Ecuadorean warship, Fine 9: 25320 42..00 "0.0.-2; lambeli: D.0.1" 13 miles, 260? true' 0 License 2 371?050 Cojimes Island, at 00?22' north latitude, 80?17 0 Matricula o Other west longitude. ol o Total 12, 164.70 0 41. ?% 0 0 0 CA 1 ?% Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 White Star Espirito Santo Ranger Ruthie B_ Freedom Ruthie B Intrepid Western Sky West Coast 249 335 248 755 253 538 252 612 262 968 252 612 254 297 241 122 249 363 do June 13,1963 June 29,1963 June 1963 do Aug. 19,1963 do Dec. 20,1963 Dec. 29,1963 do June 18,1963 June 29,1963 June 1963 do Aug. 19,1963 do Dec. 30,1963 do 18 Ecuador: Fine License Matricula Other Total 4 Ecuador: Fine License Matricula Total M Ecuador: Fine License Matricide Other 1 PERU: Fine License Matricula Other 1 PERU: Fine License Mattrcula Other 1 PERU: Fine License MEtricula Other 1 PERU: Fine License Matricula Other 11 Ecuador: Fine License Matricula Other 2 Ecuador: Fine License Matricula Other 11,184.00 2,652.30 350.00 78.50 Vessel traveling when seized by Ecuadorean war ship, "D.0.-2; Jambeli; D.0.1", 13 miles, 260? true, Cojimes Island, 00?22' north latitude, 80-17' west longitude. Vessel entered port to buy license, at Salinas, Ecuador when seized by Ecuadorean warship, name not available. Seized in error about 50 miles off coast of Ecuador. Name of seizing vessel not available. Seized by Peruvian warship, 27 miles off coast of Peru, seizure in error. Exact position not available. Vessel traveling about 27 miles off coast of Peru when seized by Peruvian warship, exact position unavailable. Vessel traveling about 38 miles off coast of Peru when seized by Peruvian warship. Exact posi- tion unavailable. Vessel traveling 38 miles off coast of Peru, seized by Peruvian warship. Exact position not available. Seized at Wreck Bay, San Cristobal, Galapagos Islands, by Ecuadorean warship. Seizire in error. Seized at Wreck Bay, San Cristobal, Galapagos Islands. Seizure in error. 0 0- 0 (T) to 1.3 co co " 0 0 tri CO co tri tri 14,264.80 None 2,416.00 350.00 2,766.00 None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None NA None None None NA l?-900014009000t108?0089/dCIU-VIO : /0/60/1.00Z eseelet1 JOd PeA0AdV LISTING OF SEIZURES OF U.S. TUNA CLIPPERS 1961-68, BY DATES OF SEIZURE AND RELEASE, FINES AND OTHER COSTS PAID, CLAIM HISTORY, AND GENERAL REMARKS?Continued s 3 0 0 0- 'n 0 n X ali CT ca m ali CD CD ?% a CO ? ? ? ? i3 0 -0 CJi CO CD CD C4 CO CD X CD CD CD CJi CD C:) 41. ?% CD CD tri Name of vessel Official number Seizure date Release date Days not fa.' g Toreign couotri Cost, Date claim filed, acknowledged, certified, paid Gale:nal remaiks Santa Anita Agnes C Nautilus- Western King Clipperton Do 258 262 285 285 273 285 285 646 870 304 287 518 518 Feb. 4,1964 Dec. 5,1964 Feb. 17,1965 do June 4,1965 June 16,1965 Feb. 4,1964 Dec. 5,1964 Feb. 171965 do June 14,1965 June 16,1965 1 Ecuador: FineNone License Matricula Otherp.) 1 Ecuador: Fine License Matricuta Other 1 Peru: Fine License Matricula Other Total 1 Peru: Fine License Matricula Other Total 11 Peru: Fine License Matricula Other Total M Peru: Fine License Matricula Other NoneNwe None None None None None Filed July 29,1965 Acknowledged Aug. 4,1965 Certified Sept. 27,1965 Paid Nov. 24,1965 Vessel entered port in Galapagos Islands seeking aid for injured seaman. Vessel seized upon entry into port. Vessel on anchor, Galapagos Islands. Name of seizing vessel not available, exact position of seizure not available. Entered Port of Talara, Peru, seeking aid for hurt man. Vessel seized upon entering port. Vessel entered Port of Talara, Peru for provisions and was taken under seizure. Vessel entered Port of Chimbote, Peru to perform emergency repairs and was taken under seizure. Seized about 60 miles off coast of Peru by Peruvian warship, "B.A.F. Calves /68," at 09000' south latitude and 80?00' west longitude. Seizure in error. None 4,734.00 350.00 NA 5,084.00 None 4,278.00 350.00 NA 4,628. 00 7,128.00 3,214.00 350.00 1,517.86 12,209.86 None None None None Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Sun Jason 251 946 June 4,1965 June 6,1965 3 Peru: Fine None License 1,976.00 Matricula None Other NA San Juan 289 819 June 11,1965 June 13,1965 3 Peru: Fine None License 5,538.00 Matricula 350.00 Other NA Total 5,88&00 Hornet 289 761 June 13,1965 June 14,1965 2 Peru: Fine None License 4,686.00 Matricula 350.00 Other NA Total 5,036.00 Concha 270 585 July 29,1965 July 29,1965 1 Ecuador: Fine None License None Matricula None Other None White Star 249 716 Oct 5,1965 Nov. 1,1965 28 Ecuador: Fine 11,184.00 License 2,416.20 Matricula 350.00 Other NA Total ______ 13,950.20 Mary Barbara 275 716 Dec. 30,1965 Dec. 30,1965 1 Peru: Fine 1,000.00 License None Matricula__ _____ None Other NA Day Island 288 260 Feb. 3,1966 Feb. 18,1966 16 Columbia: Fine 5,000.00 License None Matricula None Other 2,058.62 Total 7,058.62 Vessel centered Port of Talara, Peru to seek aid for ill fisherman and was taken under seizure. Filed NA Vessel fishing, seized about 44 miles off Huanocape Acknowledged NA Island, at 90?05' south latitude, 79?36' west Certified NA longitude, by Peruvian warship, "B.A.F. Calvez Paid (9 #68-" Filed NA Vessel traveling about 96 miles off coast of Peru, Acknowledged NA at 09?32' south latitude, 80011 west longitude, Certified NA by Peruvian warship "B.A.F. Calvez #68." Paid NA Seized in error near Salinas, Ecuador. Name of seizing vessel not available. Exact position not available. Filed NA Drifting, working on engine near Salinas, Ecuador Acknowledged NA about 17 miles from shore, at 02?41' south Certified NA latitude, 80?56' west longitude. Name of seizing Paid NA vessel unavailable. Filed NA Entered Port of Callao, Peru to obtain engine Acknowledged NA parts and was taken under seizure. Certified NA Paid NA While traveling toward Panama, seized by Colom- Filed May 12,1966 bian warship, the "Almirante Padilla," 8.5 Acknowledged_ ___June 1,1966 miles between Cape Marzo and Pta Cruces at Certified Oct 27,1966 06?37'2" North latitude, 77?40'08" west longi- Paid June 6,1967 tude. Approved For Release 2001/09/Q77g CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 l?-900014009000t108?0089/dCIU-VIO : /0/60/1.00Z eseelet1 JOd PeA0AdV 0 LISTING OF SEIZURES OF U.S. TUNA CLIPPERS 1961-68, BY DATES OF SEIZURE AND RELEASE, FINES AND OTHER COSTS PAID, CLAIM HISTORY, AND GNEERAL REMARKS-Continued a. 0 CV ca Cl) CD 0 0 -% 8 tO 8 ...?i aokor.),"41- Ii> X 0 -0 ..." tri CO 0 0 C.4 CO 0 X 0 0 0 tri 0 0 41. -% 0 0 0 CA 1 -% Name of vessel Official number Seizure date Release date Days not fishing Foreign country Costs Date claim Med, acknowledged, certified, paid General remarks Sun Europa Mauritania Day Island Do San Juan Pilgrim Chicken of the Sea 247 979 250 236 288 260 2 260 289 819 291 488 248 779 Mar. 3,1966 Apr. 29,1966 May 12,1966 May 23,1966 do do do Mar. 4,1966 Apr. 30,1966 May 14,1966 May 24,1966 do do May 23,1966 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 Panama: Fine License Matricide Other Peru: FineN License Matricula Other 10,000.00 None None None Noonnee None 340.49 Vessel in set with net in water, boarded by armed Filed Apr. 18,1966 soldiers aboard private yachts, about 5X miles, Acknowledged Apr. 29,1966 from Pta Caracoles, at 0786' north latitude Certified Mar. 2,1967 78?21' west longitude, Paid lone 6, 1967 Vessel traveling, seized about 40 miles from Pta Picos, by Peruvian warship "S.A.E. Diez Conseco 169," at 03?19' south latitude, 81?25' west longitude. Filed Sept 13,1966 Vessel traveling, seized by armed soldiers from Acknowledged_ Sept 21,1966 aboard private yachts, about 29 mites from shore, Certified Mar. 2,1967 at 07?42' north latitude 78'42 west longitude. Paid June 5,1967 Filed_ Sept. 13,1966 Just completed set, seized by Peruvian warship Acknowledged Sept 21,1966 #25 about 17 miles from Pta Picos and Pta Sol Certified July 24,1967 at 03?44' south latitude, 81'06' west longitude. Paid June 25,1968 Filed Jan. 10,1967 Fishing, seized by Peruvian warship #25 about 17 Acknowledged.. Jan. 24,1967 miles from Pta Picas and Pb Sol, at 03?44' south Certified July 24,1967 latitude, 81?06' west longitude. Paid June 5,1968 Filed July 18,1966 On. Acknowledged July 29,1966 Certified July 17,1967 Paid June 5,1968 Do. Certified Jan. 15,1969 Panama: Fine License Matricide Other 10,000.00 Norm None 588.36 Totel 10,588.36 Peru: Fine License Matricula Other 12,160.M None None 805.41 Total Peru: Fine License_ Matricula Other Peru: Fine License Matricula____. _ Other Peru: Fine License Matricula Other 12,965.41 11,776.00 None None NA 11,512.00 None None NA 2,900.00 2,900.00 None l?-900014009000t108?0089/dCIU-VIO : /0/60/1.00Z eseelet1 JOd PeA0AdV City of Tacoma 295 035 June 14,1966 June 15,1966 2 Ecuador: Fine None Seized in error by Ecuadorean warship, "B.A.E. License Matricula None None Quito LC-71" near Salinas, Ecuador. Exact posi- tion not available. Other None Clipperton 235 518 do do 2 Ecuador: Fine None Seized in error by Ecuadorean warship, 'B.A.E License Matricula None None Quito LC-71", near Salinas, Ecuador. Vessel released. Other None Ronnie S 255 975 Oct. 2,1966 Oct. 6,1966 5 Peru: Vessel looking for fish, seized by Peruvian warship Fine License 7,384.00 None Filed Acknowledged_ Jan. 14,1967 _ __ Feb. 2,1967 "BAP. Santillan #22," 24 miles by radar bear- ing off shore. West % north of Zorritos Peru. Matricula None Certified June 30,1967 Other 599.66 Paid June 25,1968 Total 7,983.66 Sun Europa 247 979 do do 5 Peru: Traveling, seized by Peruvian warship "BAP. Fine License None None Santillan #22", 28 miles, radar bearing off shore, 160? true of Zorritos, Peru. Matricula None Other None Eastern Pacific 500 099 Oct. 3,1966 do 5 Peru: Fine License 9,904.00 None Filed Acknowledged Jan. 31,1967 __ Feb. 14,1967 Vessel drifting, seized at 5:30 A.M., by Peruvian warship, "B.A.P. Velarde #21," about 20 miles, by radar bearing, 306? magnetic, Pt. Picos, Peru. Matricula None Certified Aug. 1,1967 Other 647.14 Paid June 25,1968 Total 10,551.14 Shamrock 253 836 Oct. 10,1966 Oct. 13,1966 4 Mexico: Vessel seized in error near Cedros Island. Released. Fine None License None Matricula None Other None New Era 250 382 Jan. 7,1967 Jan. 13,1967 7 Ecuador: Fine License Matricula Other 7,200.00 3,000.00 None NA Travel toward Peru, seized by Ecuadorean war- ship "B.A.E. Cayambe," 35 miles 35? true from Cape Santa Elena, at 02? 40' south latitude, 81?21' west longitude. Total 10,200.00 l?-900014009000U09C00e9LdCiti-ViJV/0/60/1.00Z eSeeleti JOd PeA0AdV l?-900014009000t108?0089/dCIU-VIO : /0/60/1.00Z eseelet1 JOd PeA0AdV LISTING OF SEIZURES OF U.S. TUNA CLIPPERS 1961-68, BY DATES OF SEIZURE AND RELEASE, FINES AND OTHER COSTS PAID, CLAIM HISTORY, AND GENERAL REMARKS?Continued 0 0- 0 Name of vessel Official number Seizure date Release date Days not fishing Foreign, ceuntry Casts Date claim filed, acknowledged, certified, paid General remarks Endeavor 258 022 do do 7 Ecuador: (17 Fine License 8,064.00 2,016.00 Filed Mar. 9,1967 Traveling toward Peru, seized by Ecuadorean Acknowledged_ _ _ . Mar. 20,1967 warship "B.A.E. Cayambe," 51 miles from, (/) Matricula 200.00 Certified Mar. 31,1967 Cape Santa Elena, at 02?50' south latitude, Other 900.00 Paid June 6,1967 81?45' west longitude. Total 11,180.00 Victoria 249 539 do do 7 Ecuador: Fine License 8,448.00 2,112.00 Filed Mar. 13,1967 Traveling toward Peru, seized by Ecuadorean Acknowledged_ Mar. 20,1967 warship "B.A.E. Cayambe" 50 miles from co Matetrula 200 .00 Certified Mar. 31;1067 Port nf Salinas; 02?42' south latitude, 81?41Y Other 1,000. 00 Paid June 6,1967 west longitude. Total 10,760.00 Saa-F'rcnie 7" 920 Jan 76,1967 Jan. 26,1967 7 Ecuador: Fine 12,528.00 Filed Mar. 22,1967 Traveling toward Peru, seized by Ecuadorean License 3,138,20 Acknowledged__ Mar_ 30,1967 warship "B.A_E. Quito LC-71," about 60 miles Matricide 200.00 Certified Apr. 10,1967 west of Santa Clara Island at 02?42' south Other 206.08 Paid June 6,1967 latitude, 81?40' west longitude. -0 Total 16,072.28 tri Caribbean 291 814 Jan. 26,1967 Jan. 28,1967 3 Peru: CO Fme 10, . 00 Filed Mar. 30,1967 Drifting at night, seized by Peruvian warship License None Acknowledged_ _ Apr. 21,1967 #24, about 15 miles from Pta Picos, Peru, a Matricula None Certified Aug. 1,1967 030 south latitude, 81? west longitude. Other 664.67 co Total 11,552.67 Hornet 289 761 do do 3 Peru: Fine 10,072.00 Filed Mar. 30,1967 Traveling, seized at 2220 hours by Ecuadorean License Matricula None None Acknowledged__ Apr. 21,1967 warship "B.A.P. Velarde #21," about 24 miles Certified Aug. 1,1967 from Pta Picas, Peru, at 03?27' south lati- tri Other 637.56 tude 81?02' west longitude. Total 10,709.56 tri l?-900014009000t108?0089/dCIU-VIO /0/60/1.00Z eseelet1 JOd PeA0AdV . Defense ,:. = I -4 cr, cz ! City of Los Angeles i 249 247 796 155 Jan. do 7, 1967 Jan. 7,1967 j.,71 do 1 1 Mexico: Fine License Matricula Other ______ ._-- Mexico: Fine License Mia atricu Other None None None None None None None None Seized in error near Tres Marias Islands, name of seizing vessel and exact position not available. Vessel released. Ronnie S 255 975 Feb. 15, 1967 Feb. 18, 1967 4 Ecuador: I Fine 12, 753. 00 Filed Apr. 12, 1967 In set, net in water, seized by Ecuadorean warship co License Matricula 3, 192. 00 Acknowledged__ Apr. 21, 203.00 Certified June 28, 1967 1967 ''B.A.E. Guayaquil LC-72," by radar 25 miles from Pta Piens at 03?27' south latitude, 81?03' Other Total 297.77 Paid June 25, 1968 west longitude. 17, 097.77 Determined 261 423 do do 4 Ecuador: Fine 8, 784. 00 Set, net in water, seized by warship (Ecuador) License Matricula Other 1, 896. 00 500.00 1, 000.00 "B.A.E. Guayaquil LC-72," by radar 25 miles from Pta Picas at 03?27' south latitude, 81?04, west longitude. Total 12, 180. 00 Ranger 253 538 do do 4 Ecuador: Vessel traveling, seized by warship (Ecuador) Fine 9, 504. 00 Filed Sept. 4, 1968 "B.A.C. Guayaquil LC-72," about 32 miles from License 2, 176. 00 Acknowledged__ Sept. 10, 1968 Peruvian coast at ow south latitude, 81?24' Matricula 200. 00 Certified Sept. 24, 1968 west longitude. Other Total 1, 016. 52 Paid Oct. 25, 1968 12, 896. 52 Sun Hawk 249 270 May 5, 1967 May 5, 1967 1 Mexico: Fine None Seized in error 9 miles southwest of Todos Santos Baja, Calif. Vessel released. License None Matricula None Other None Western King 273 287 July 4, 1967 July 12, 1967 9 Ecuador: Fine License Matricula 17, 512. 00 4, 128.00 350. 00 Ecuadorean aircraft spotted vessel traveling at 1730, later Ecuadorean warship "B.A.E. Esmeral- des" seized it 24 miles off Cabo Pasado, 00?19' south latitude, 80?53' west longitude. Other 691. 00 Total 22, 681. 00 l?-900014009000t108?0089/dCIU-VIO iaft0/1.00Z eseelet1 JOd peAwddV 1.-900014009000t109?0089/dati-VIO L0/60/1?00Z aseeieu JOd 130A0iddV LISTING OF SEIZURES OF U.S. TUNA CLIPPERS 1961-68, BY DATES OF SEIZURE AND RELEASE, FINES AND OTHER COSTS PAID, CLAIM HISTORY, AND GENERAL REMARKS-Continued Name of vessel Days Official not number Seizure date Release date fishing Foreign country Date claim filed, acknowledged, Costs certified, paid General remarks Day Island 288 260 Aug. 3,1967 Aug. 4,1967 M Ecuador: Seized in error by "B,A.E. Esmeraldes," 10,4 miles Fine None south southeast of Isla La Plata, at 01=26' south License None latitude, 80?58' west longitude, released. Matricula None Other None American Queen 250 201 do do 1 Ecuador: Seized in error by "B.A.E. Esmeraldes" (Ecuador) Fine None 9 miles off Isla Salango, Ecuador, released. Exact License None position not available. Matricula None Other None Puritan 286 673 Oct. 20, 1967 Oct. 22, 1967 3 Ecuador: At 0500 hours fired upon, seized and boarded by ch.. NnnP arrnpri cnIrliorc frnm warchip (Ernminr) "C_Irion License 15, 890. 00 II," 70 miles off coast of Ecuador, at 03?15' south Matricula 350. 00 latitude, 81?39' west longitude. Other 1,400. 00 fatal 17, 6,10 ,,,, Navigator 250-182 Mar. 2,1968 Mar. 4,1968 3 Ecuador: Filed May 21, 1968 At about 2050 hours, Mar. 2, 1968, an Ecuadorean Fine None Acknowledged__ _ _ May 21, 1968 warship, the "Esmeraldas," "E-2", seized the License 6, 545. 00 Certified 0) "Navigator" 23 miles west of Cabo de San Fran- Matricula 350. 00 cisco, Ecuador. "Navigator" held at sea until Other 87.50 about 1625 Mar. 4, 1968, a license was bought ($6,982.50) by masters wife, and fact confirmed Total 6, 982. 50 by Quito. City of Tacoma 295 -035 Mar. 13,1968 Mar. 14,1968 Peru: About 0915, Peruvian time, a Peruvian warship, Fine None No. 22, seized the "City of Tacoma" at 03?30' License 5,226.00 south latitude, 81?24' west longitude. "City of Matricula 350. 00 Tacoma" forced to chase Ecuadorean tuna vessel, "Venus" by Ecuadorean boarding party who fired Total 5, 576. 00 upon "Venus," which also was seized. Paramount 250-688 Mar. 20, 1968 Mar. 23, 1968 4 Ecuador: About 5:30 a.m., Ecuadorean warship, "Esmeral- Fine 21, 700. 00 das," E-2 seized the "Paramount" at 1?40' License 5, 475. GO south latitude, 81?40' west longitude, 46 miles Matricula 350.00 off coast. Other 2, 600. 00 Total 30, 075. 00 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B00380R000500410005-1 l?-900014009000t108?0089/dCIU-VIO : /0/60/1.00Z eseelet1 JOd PeA0AdV Western King Royal Pacific Connie Jean Eastern Pacific Pacific Queen Ecuador Day Island 273-287 286-263 503-056 500-099 512-151 263-017 288-260 Apr. 4, 1968 Aug. 8, 1968 do do do Sept. 18, 1968 Dec. 10, 1968 Apr. 5, 1968 Aug. :1, 1968 do Aug. 12, 1968 Aug. 11, 1968 Sept. 18, 1968 Dec. 15, 1998 2 4 4 5 1 6 Peru: Fine License Matricula Total Ecuador: Fine Other Total Ecuador: Fine Other Total Ecuador: Fine Other Ecuador: Fine Other Total Peru: Fine Ecuador: Fine License Other Total None 5, 130. 00 350.00 Filed Sept. 20, 1968 Acknowledged Sept. 24, 1968 Certified Nov. 6, 1968 Filed Sept. 23, 1968 Acknowledged Sept. 26, 1968 Certified Nov. 6, 1968 Filed Sept. 10, 1968 Acknowledged _ Sept. 16, 1968 Certified Nov. 6, 1968 Filed Sept. 10,1968 Acknowledged Sept. 16, 1968 Certified Nov. 6, 1968 Filed Jan. 30,1969 Acknowledged ___.Feb. 5,1969 Certified Mar. 12, 1969 At 4 p.m., "Western King" was seized by Peruvian warship, at 3'35' south latitude, 80?57' west longitude. Approximately 15 miles off coast, while drifting. 0930 EST, 8 August 1968 "Royal Pacific" seized by Ecuador eanwarship, "25 de Julio "at 0?34' south latitude, 80?52' west longitude, (21 miles off coast of Ecuador). 1114 EST, 8 August 1968 "Connie Jean" seized by Ecuadorean warship "Presidente Alfaro" at 00?23' south latitude, 80?55 west longitude, (25 miles off Ecuadorean coast). 1120 EST, 8 August 1968 "Eastern Pacific" seized by Ecuadorean warship "25 de Julio" at 00?36' south latitude, 80?58' west longitude, (21 miles off Ecuadorean coast). 1130 EST 8 August 1968 "Pacific Queen" was seized by Ecuadorean warship 'Presidente Alfaro" at 00023' south latitude, 80?56' west longitude, (23 miles off Ecuadorean coast). 0630 EST 19 September 1968, "Ecuador" was seized by Ecuadorean warship, "Santillan #2,". at 03?18' south latitude, 81?03' west longitude Forced into Port of Talara, papers examined found in order, "Ecuador" released. 0640 EST 10 December 1968 "Day Island" seized by Ecuadorean warship, "Bae Esmeraldes", at 00?00' south latitude, 80'38' west longitude, (19 miles off coast of Ecuador). 0 CD a.0 CD al) 0 CO . 0 0 c.4 0 0 0 0 tri 5, 480. 00 34, 580.00 750.00 35, 330.00 52, 640. 00 750.00 53, 390.00 51, 940. 00 750.00 63, 000, 00 750.00 63, 759. 00 None 65, MO. 00 16, 275. 00 600.00 81, 875. 00 I Claim denied. Denied. tri l?-900014009000t108?0089/dCIU-VIO : /0/60/1.00Z eseelet1 Jod peAwddv LISTING OF SEIZURES OF 11.S. TUNA CLIPPERS 1961-68, BY DATES OF SEIZURE AND RELEASE, FINES AND OTHER COSTS PAID, CLAIM HISTORY, AND GENERAL REMARKS?Continued Name of vessel Official number Seizure date Release date Daya not fishing Foreign country Costs Mariner 255 346 Feb. 14, 1369 Feb. 14. 1969 1 Peru: Fine 41, 216.0 License 3, 108.00 Matricula 500.00 Other 405.38 Total 11, 229. 38 San Juan 289 819 Mar, 19, 1969 Mar, 19. 1969 1 Peru: Fino 11, 776.00 License 5,030.00 Matricula 500.00 Other 396.98 Total 18, 880 98 Cape Ann 249 520 do do 1 Peru: Fine 5, 488. 00 License 2,744.00 Matricula 500.00 Other 74.31 Total 8, 806. 31 Western King 273 287 May 16, 1969 May 16, 1969 1 Peru: Fine 10, 048. 00 License 4, 524. 00 Matricula 500.00 Other 1, 099.86 Total 16, 171.66 Alphecca 255 005 June 18, 1969 June 18, 1969 3-:,2" Ecuador: Fine None License None Matricuia None Other None Date claim filed, acknowledged, certified, paid General remarks February 14. 1969. Peruvian warship No, 23 filed May 2, 1969 damaged hull, demolished speedboat. Same war- Acknowledged May 8, 1969 ship shot up "San Juan". Location of seizure Certified Sep. 18, 1969 29.6 miles off coast. "San Juan" first shot at Paid Jan. 8, 1970 about 60 miles off coast. March 19, 1969, about 0550 hours Peruvian time, Filprl May 1,1969 Parnvian patrol uoccal Ne 99 voi-rod the "sn. Acknowledged May 19, 1969 Juan" 23 miles northwest of Punta Sal, Peru Certified Sep. 18,1969 (Gulf of Guayaquil). Forced into Talara, Peru. /0/60/1?00Z aseeieu JOd 130A0iddV Paid Jan. 8,1970 Upon payment of fine and costs, vessel was 0 released. ,,,,:1::. :1-'S ' March 19, 1969, Peruvian warship No. 22 seized Filed May 1,1969 the "Cape Ann" approximately 23 miles north- 0 Acknowledged May 12, 1969 west of Punta Sal, Peru (Gulf of Guayaquil). Certified Sep. 18, 1969 Forced into Talara, Peru. Released upon payment 1:1 Paid Jan. 8, 1970 of fine and costs. tri CO 0 (Location of seizure-0.3?28' south latitude, 80?56' 0 Filed NA west longitude.) C..1 Acknowledged_ _ _ _ NA CO Certified Sep. 18, 1969 0 Paid Jan. 8, 1970 X 0 0 0 Stopped and seized by Ecuadorean gunboat #7I tri Filed NA about 6 to 7 miles off shore. "Alphecca" headed Acknowledged____ f4A into port to check license. tri l?-900014009000t108?0089/dCIU-VIO : /0/60/1.00Z eseelet1 JOd PeA0AdV > Caribbean 291 814 June 19, 1969 June 28, 1969 10 Ecuador: Seized at 01?8' south, 86?45' west, about 184 miles "0 Filed 32, 950. 00 Filed NA off coast of Ecuador, near Galapagos Islands. "0 License 8, 250. 00 Acknowledged___ _ NA Purchased license and matricula with promise of n Matricula None Certified Oct. 10, 1969 release. Held 9 days until fine assessed and paid. 0 Other NA < M Total 41, 200.00 a Neptune 505 674 June 20, 1969 June 20, 1969 ?.A'2 Ecuador: Seized about 22 miles off shore about 6 a.m. -11 Fine None Filed NA Boarded by armed guards, forced to head License None toward Salinas, Ecuador. Released at sea. 0n Matricula None "Neptune" fired upon, two bursts from machine Other None gun, damage to house only. X Marietta 517 099 do do M Ecuador: Seized about 22 miles off shore about 6 a.m. M Fine None Filed NA Boarded by armed guards, forced to head 47 License None toward Salinas, Ecuador. Released at sea. O) Matricula None (/) Other None M Bold venture 513 392 do do 34 Ecuador: Do. Fine None Filed NA IV License None 0 Matricula None 0 Other None ?% Queen Mary 520 243 do do 34 Ecuador: 8 Fine None Filed NA Do. CO License None C 31 \ Matricula None 00 0 Other None --I ?-.1 Royal Pacific 286 263 do do 34 Ecuador: .. Fine None Filed NA Do. License None 0 Matricula None )3' Other None Dominator 268 896 July 3,1969 July 3,1969 34 Peru: i-.1 Fine None Filed NA Boarded and seized about 25 miles off coast by License None Peruvian warship. Released about 1:15 p.m. at 0 Matricula None sea. No fine imposed. -0 Other None 'NI Seafarer 252 486 do do 3,i Peru:CA Fine None Filed . NA Do. CO License None 0 Matricula None 0 Other None C..) Invader 236 946 Oct. 31, 1969 Nov. 6,1969 7 Ecuclaor: CO Fine None Filed NA Seized at San Cristobal, Galapagos Island. Vessel 0 License None had valid license #015. Left Costa Rica after X Matricula None unloading on Oct. 16. On 21st entered Ecuadorean 0 Other None 200-mile area, then on 29th purchased 2d license. 0 Captain of Port felt vessel operated in violation 0 for 8 days on expired license. Vessel forced to cri Salinas, then released without tine or penalty. 0 0 41. ?% 0 0 0 cri _. l?-900014009000t108?0089/dCIU-VIO : /0/60/1.00Z eseelet1 JOd PeA0AdV LIS I !NG OE SE:GURES OF U.S. 1 UNA La_iet'Etis iu7u, Ci' DATES Or SZiiiiiir: A ii) OLLEASE, FINES AND OTHER COSTS PAiD, CLAIM iliSTOR r, ANL/ litlILHAL REMARKS ;:---1 00 00 0 n X 0 47 A) V) 0 0 0 ?% a) 8 --.1 " 0 17. 1- xj 0 -0 --.4 tri CO 0 0 C..) CO 0 X 0 0 o tri 0 0 41. ?% 0 0 0 N27:1_ fves,_:e! Official num SejvIre dote Release date Days not fishing Foleign country Costs Date claim filed, acknowledged , certified, paid General remarks City of Panama Western King Day Island Western Ace 514 567 273 287 283 260 263 848 February 14_ _ February 15_ . February 23., February 24... February 25 March 1 April 17 April 17 1 Ecuador: Fine License Other -re,,,! 1 Peru: Fine License Matricula Other 3 Eucador: F License nse Matricula Other Total 3., Peru ' : LFiicneense Matricula Other Total $49,650.00 NA " LC-72 Guayaquil" seized vessel 17 miles south- Filed NA west Point Ancon 02?29' (south) latitude, 81?08' (west) longitude. Reported two Ecuadorean pilots killed in crash on patrol.Matricide8 Seizure 37 miles from Pta. Pecos, 030 20' south Filed NA latitude, 81? 12' west longitude. Seized by "25 de Julio," 30 miles off Ecuador; Filed June 1, 1970 02? 53' south latitude, 81? 12' west longitude. Acknowledged June 5, 1970 Certified June 15, 1970 Paid Jan. 20, 1971 Seized on high seas, taken into Talara. No further Filed NA information. 49, 650 " 15, 072. 00 NA 15, 072.00 ? 84, 050.00 2, 600.00 86, 650.00 5, 480.00 NA 5, 480. 00 l?-900014009000t108?0089/dCIU-VIO /0/60/1.00Z eseelet1 JOd PeA0AdV LISTING OF SEIZURES OF U.S. TUNA CLIPPERS 1971, BY DATES OF SEIZURE AND RELEASE, FINES AND OTHER COSTS PAID, CLAIM HISTORY, AND GENERAL REMARKS Name of vessel Official number Seizure Release date date Days not Foreign fishing country Costs: fine, license, matricula, et cetera General remarks I. Lexington 249 877 January 11___ January 14 3 Ecuador $33, 800. 00 1. 02?40' south latitude; 81?45' west longitude "Guayaquil" (62 miles). 2. Bold Venture 513 392 January 15 January 16_ 1 do 49, 950. 00 2. 03?00' south latitude; 81?28' west longitude "Guayaquil" (55 miles). 3. Anna Maria 523 633 do do 1 do 52, 000. 00 3. 02?58' south latitude; 81023 west longitude "Guayaquil" (50 miles). 4. Apollo 529 833 January 17__ January 18 1 do 86, 650. 00 4. 02?53' south latitude; 81'31' west longitude "Guayaquil" (52 miles). 5. Antonina C 525 457 January 18 January 19._ I do 39, 850.00 5. 02?49' south latitude; 81?35'west longitude "25 de Julio" (50 miles). 6. Ocean Queen 527 550 do January 20 1 do 69, 100. 00 6. 02?38.5' south latitude; 81?10' west longitude "25 de Julio" (27 miles). 7. Cape Cod 291 488 do do 1 do 44, 150. 00 7. 03?03' south latitude; 81?30' west longitude "Guayaquil" (51 miles). 8. Captain Vincent Gann__ 527 923 do do 1 do 52, 550. 00 8. 02?51' south latitude; 81?21.5' west longitude "25 de Julio" (43 miles). 9. Blue Pacific 509 115 do do 1 do 65, 605. 00 9. 02?48' south latitude; 81?20' west longitude. "25 de Julio" (40 miles). 10. Hornet 289 761 January 19 do 1 do 37, 800. 00 10. 01?48' south latitude; 82?08' west longitude. "25 de Julio" (75 miles). 11. Quo Vadis 528 822 do do 1 do 48, 150.00 11. 03?20' south latitude; 81?50' west longitude. "Presidente Allem" (64 miles). 12. Neptune 505 674 January 22 January 23 I do 42, 950.00 12. 03?04' south latitude; 82?01' west longtiude. "LC-71 Quito" (70 miles). 13. Day Island 288 260 do do 1 do 46, 500. 00 13. 02?45' south latitude; 81?30' west longitude. "25 de Julio" (46 miles). 14. Caribbean 291 814 January 23__ January January 24__ 1 do 41, 200. 00 14. 03?27' south latitude; 81?34' west longitude. "Presidente Alfaro" (71 miles). 15. Western King 273 287 January 27._ _ January 28._ I do 38, 050. 00 15. 03?01' south latitude; 81?21' west longitude. "Presidente Alfaro" (49 miles). 16. Coimbra 249 531 do January 29__ 2 do 17, 750. 00 16. 03?10' south latitude; 81?16' west longitude. "Presidente Altars" (44 miles). 17. Jeanette C 511 483 do January 28._ 1 do 65, 550. 00 17. 03?11' south latitude; 81?49' west longitude. "LC-71 Quito" (46 miles). 18. John F. Kennedy 524 862 February 10___ February 10 1 do 45, 050. 00 18. 02?15' south latitude; 82?52' west longitude. "Cayambe" (100 miles). 19. Westport 271 426 February 20___ February 21 1 do 32, 150.00 19. 03?00' south latitude; 81?20' west longitude. "Guayaq uil" (47 miles). 20. Nautilus 285 304 February 24___ February 25_ 1 do 42, 950.00 20. 03?00' south latitude; 82?00' west longitude. "Guayaquil" (60 miles). 21. Sun Europa 247 979 February 27_ February 28_ 1 do 23, 050.00 21. 03?07' south latitude; 81?12' west longitude. "Guayaquil" (44 miles). 22. Conchs 270 585 do February 27_ 1 do 41, 550. 00 22. 02?55' south latitude; 81?30' west longitude. "Guayaquil" (49 miles). 23. United States 273 327 do do 1 do 41, 550. 00 23. 02?50'south latitude; 81?30' west longitude. "Guayaquil" (47 miles). 24. Lois Seaver 277 813 do do 1 do 24, 750. 00 24. 02?49' south latitude; 81?32' west longitude. "Guayaq uil " (48 miles). 25. Apollo 529 333 March 3 March 4 1 do 155,340.00 25. ons, south latitude; 82?34' west longitude "Esmeraldes" (130 miles). 26. Caribbean 291 814 March 27 March 28 2 do 74, 160.00 26. 02?53' south latitude; 81?20' west longitude "Calicuchima" (43 miles). 27. Puritan 286 673 March 30 March 30 M Peru 18, 204. 00 27. 03?30' south latitude; 81?09' west longitude "Sanchez Carrion" (29 miles). 28. Venturous 535 149 November 9__ November 11_ 2 Ecuador 46, 100. 00 28. 03?08' south latitude; 81?36' west longitude "Bae Quito-LC-61" (64 miles). 29. Trinidad 532 179 November 10 do 1 do 59, 650. 00 29. 03?15' south latitude; 81?40' west longitude "Bae Quito-LC-61" (82 miles). 30. Denise Marie 534 504 do do 1 do NA 30. 03?08' south latitude; 8196' west longitude "Ban Quito-LC-61" (64 miles). 31. Blue Meridian 278 273 do do I do 32, 400. 00 31. 02'50' south latitude; 81?20' west longitude "Ban Quito-LC-61" (39 miles). 32. Cheryl Marie 519 417 November 12_ November 13_ I do 50, 900.00 32. 02?48' south latitude; 81?46' west longitude "Bae Quito-LC-61" (59 miles). 33. Mary S 531 733 do do 1 do 46, 250. 00 33. 02?48' south latitude; 81?46' west longitude "Bae Quito-LC-61" (59 miles). 34. Endeavor 248 022 do November 14_ 2 do 17, 150. 00 34. 02?48' south latitude; 81?46' west longitude "Bae Quito (LC-61)" (59 miles). l?-900014009000t108?0089/dCIU-VIO /0/60/1.00Z eseelet1 JOd PeA0AdV l?-900014009000t108?0089/dCIU-VIO : /0/60/1.00Z eseelet1 JOd PeA0AdV I !STING' Or SFI7IIRFS OF II S. TUNA CI IPPFRS 1971, RV DATFS SFI71.1RF AND RFI FARF FINFS shin (ITI-IF17 (TICTR nsin, 171 AIM 1-11CMPY, ANO arNrosi PPMAPWC-rnnCnifarl Name of vessel Official Seizure Release number date date Days not Foreign fishing country Costs: fine, license, matricula, et cetera General remarks 35. Eastern Pacific 500 099 do November 13_ 1 do 37, 450.00 35. 02'48' south latitude; miles). 36. Royal Pacific 286 263 do do 1 do 24,700.00 36. 02?48' south latitude; miles). 37, A, K. Strom 532 476 November 13_ November 14, 1 do 37. 03?07' south latitude; (LT-93)" (14 miles) 38. Lexington 249 877 do do 1 do 38. 02?17' south latitude; (LT-93)" (42 miles) 39. Cabrillo 514 267 do do 1 do 39. 02?25' south latitude; (LT-93)" (28 miles) 40. Elsinore 271 940 do do 1 do 40. 03?10' south latitude; 93)" (34 miles). 41. Ecuador 263 017 November 18_ November 21_ 3 do 22, 250.00 41. 01?33' south latitude; 42. Wiley V. A 251 031 do November 20 2 do 22,350.00 42. 01?40' south latitude; 43. Anne M 522 710 November 19 do 1 do 44, 940.00 43. 02?38' south latitude; 44. Vivian Ann 517 948 November 23_ November 24.. 1 do 37, 700.00 44. 02?38' south latitude miles). 45. Larry Roe 278 930 do do 1 do 41, 250. 00 45. 02?28' south latitude; 46. Missouri 270 789 do do I do 41,200.00 46. 03?00' south latitude 47. John F. Kennedy 524 862 November 24_ November 25_ 1 do 80,460.00 47. 01?51' south latitude 48. J. M. Martinac 509 692 do do 1 do 38, 350.00 48. 01?51' south latitude 49. Connie Jean 503 056 do do 1 do 68, 030. 00 49. 01?40' south latitude miles). 50. Bernadette 249 164 November 25 November 26_ I do 19, 000. 00 50. 02?13' south latitude 51. Ocean Queen 527 550 December 4 December 6_ 2 do 124,400.00 51. 01?50' south latitude 52. Eileen M 535 838 do do 2 do 74,150. 00 52. 01?26' south latitude 53. Ronnie S 255 975 December 9_ December II_ 2 do 48,230.00 53. 02?22' south latitude 81?46' west longitude "Bae Quito (LC-61)" (59 81?46' west longitude "Bae Quito (LC-61)" (59 73, 850. 00 81?42' west longitude "Bae Nuevo Roca Fuerte 60, 840. 00 81?42' west longitude "Bae Nuevo Roca Fuerte 44, 950. 00 81?28' west longitude "Bae Nuevo Roca Fuerte 17, 200.00 81?0' west longitude "Bae Nuevo Roca Fuerte (LT- Total 641,i 2, 504, 109. 00 81?40' west longitude "Lt-Manta" (47 miles). 81?45' west longitude. "Lt-Manta" (53 miles). 81?41' west longitude (120 miles). ; 8P41' west longitude. "Bae Quito LC-61" (46 81?36' west longitude. (39 miles). 81?25' west longitude. (51 miles). 81?51' west longitude. "DO-1" (54 miles). 81?44' west longitude. "00-1" (48 miles). ; 81?54' west longitude. "Bae Quito LC-61' (61 81?44' west longitude "Manabi" (48 miles). 81?32' west longitude LT-93" (38 miles). 81'45' west longitude. "LT-93" (54 miles). 81'25' west longitude "Esmeraldes" (30 miles). Notes.-(1) Intercepted and boarded on Nov. 12, 1971 ("Trinidad"); (2) Chased, shot at, and boarded on Nov. 13, 1971 ("Trinidad") by "LT-93"; (3) LT-93" threatened shooting if small boat not lowered by "Denise Marie" on Nov. 13, 1971. Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 LISTING OF SEIZURES OF U.S. TUNA CLIPPERS 1972, BY DATES OF SEIZURE AND RELEASE, FINES AND OTHER COSTS PAID, CLAIM HISTORY, AND GENERAL REMARKS > -0 -0 n 0 General remarks < CD 1. 00?46' south latitude; 82?10' west longitude (72 miles) "Bae Manabi." a 2. 0095' south .latitude; 83?20' west longitude (146 miles) "Bae Manabi." -n 3. 02?35' south latitude; 83?06' west longitude (124 miles) "Manabi." 0 4. 02?20' south latitude; 82?50' west longitude (113 miles) "Bae Manabi." n 5. 0290' south latitude; 82?48' west longitude (99 miles) "Bae Manabi." X 6. 02?15' south latitude; 82?35' west longitude (99 miles) "Bae Manabi." 7. 03?16' south latitude; 81?04' west longitude (34 miles) "Lorrea No. 25." M 8. 03?16' south latitude; 81?04' west longitude (34 miles) "Lorrea Na. 25." (7 9. 03?00' south latitude; 81?09' west longitude (43 miles) "Bae Presidente ca Velasco." Cl) 10. 07?03' north latitude; 80?08' west longitude (25 miles) "CC 11"-released CD at sea, no fine imposed. 11. 0298' south latitude; 82?00' west longitude (64 miles) "Bee Cayambe." 0 12. Information unavailable. 0 13. 01?56' south latitude; 81?41' west longitude (45 miles) "Presidente -% Alfaro." ...... 14. 02?08' south latitude; 81?59' west longitude (61 miles) "Bae 25 de Julio." 15. 02?30' south latitude; 81?26' west longitude (30 miles) "LT-92 (Tulcan).'' C.)-4.0 16. 02?31' south latitude; 81?36' west longitude (40 miles) "LT-92 (Tulcan)." c.0---- 17. 01 57' south latitude, 82?03' west longitude (64 miles) "Bae Presidente ..?,1 Alfaro." 18. 02 11' south latitude, 82?99' west longitude (90 miles) "LT-93 Nuevo " Rocafuerte." 0 19. 02?49' south latitude; 81?40' west longitude. (53 miles) "LT-93 Nuevo Rocafuerte." 20. 01?30' south latitude: 82?30' west longitude. (100 miles) "Bae Presidente Velasco." ?AJ 21. 03?12' south latitude; 81?44' west longitude (69 miles) "Bae Presidente 0 velasco." "0 22. 03?12' south latitude; 81?45' west longitude (73 miles) "Bae Presidente .....i velasco." tri 23. 03?10' south latitude; 81?28' west longitude (62 miles) "LT-92 (Tulcan)." CO 24. 0390' south latitude; 81?26' west longitude (61 miles) "LT-92 (Tulcan)." 25. 03?13' south latitude; 81?46' west longitude (72 miles) "Bae Presidente 0 Velasco." 0 26. 03?08' south latitude; 81?45' west longitude (71 miles) "LT-93 Nuevo CA) CO Rocafuerte." 27. 03?08' south latitude; 81?45' west longitude (71 miles )"LT-93 Nuevo 0 Rocafuerte." X 28. 03?08' south latitude; 81?32' west longitude (65 miles) "LT-92 Tulcan." 0 29. 03?05' south latitude; 81?30' west longitude (60 miles) "LT-92 Tulcan." 0 30. 35-40 miles northwest, Cape Blanco, Peru. "PNV-San Martin." o tri Name of vessel Official Seizure Release number date date Days not fishing Foreign country . Costs: fine, license, matricula, et cetera 1. Western King 273 287 January 8_ January 12 4 Ecuador $68,210.00 2. Anna Maria 523 633 January 9 do 3 do 83,200.00 3. A. K. Strom 532 476 January 14_ January 19 5 do 132, 650.00 4. City of Lisbon 531 115 January 15 do 4 do 51, 200.00 5. Puritan 286 673 do do 4 do 46, 400. 00 6. Blue Meridian 278 273 January 17_ January 20_ 3 do 58, 670.00 7. Mary Elizabeth 536 720 January 20 do 1 Peru None 8. Anna Maria 523 633 do do 1 do None 9. Aries 532 203 February 5_ February 8_ 3 Ecuador 13, 800.00 10. Santa Anita 258 646 March 11 March 12 1 Panama None 11. Nautilus 285 304 November 12_ November 15_ 3 Ecuador 77, 532. 00 12. Freedom 262 968 do November 16 3 do None 13. Gemini 534 721 November 13 do 3 do 128, 842. 00 14. Denise Marie 534 504 November 12_ November 15_ 3 do 75, 684.00 15. Sea Quest 526 971 November 13 November 16_ 3 do 72, 072.90 16. Trinidad 532 179 -----do November 15_ 2 do 108, 276. 00 17. Polaris 526 793 do November 17_ 4 do 45, 594. 00 18. Clipperton 285 518 do November 16_ 3 do 30, 644.00 19. Western King 273 287 November 15 do 2 do 68,964. 00 20. City of San Diego 295 035 November 14 - do 2 do 43, 146. 00 21. Eastern Pacific 500 099 November 21_ November 22_ 1 do 67, 872.00 22. Marco Polo 534 220 do do 1 do 60, 938.00 23. J. M. Martinac 524 862 November 22_ November 23_ 1 do 81, 704. 00 24. Ocean Queen 527 560 .._do November 24_ 2 do 126, 112.00 25. John F. Kennedy 509 692 November 21_ November 22_ 1 do 69, 510.00 26. Pacific Queen 512 151 November 22_ November 24_ 2 do 45, 900. 00 27. Kerni M 518 807 do November 23_ 1 do 52, 472.00 28. Pacific Tradewinds 517 479 do November 24_ 2 do 54, 468.00 29. Venturous 535 149 do do 2 do 83,902.00 30. Blue Meridian 278 273 December 12_ December 13_ 1 Peru 19, 440. 00 Total 71 1, 767, 202. 00 tri Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 LISTING' OF SEIZURES OF U.S. TUNA CLIPPERS 1073, BY DATES OF SEIZURE AND RELEASE, FINES AND OTHER COSTS PAID, CLAIM HISTORY, AND GENERAL REMARKS Name of vessel Official Seizure number date Release date Days not fishing Foreign country Costs: tine, license, matricula, et cetera General remarks 1. Clippterton 285 518 January 10 January 11 _ 2 Peru $19,320.00 1. 05?14 south latitude; 81?38' west longitude (30 miles) "Bap San Martin." 2. Caribbean 291 814 January 12 _ January 13 2 do 26,220.00 2. 03?57' south latitude; 81?36' west longitude "Bap San Martin." 3. Day Island 288 260 January 17_ _ January 19 2 do 29. 400. 00 3. 03?38' qouth latitude; 81 50' wcst 1-ngitude (35 :alien) 'Bap San Martin." 4. Weztanl r.lng ?,3 287 an january an 2 do 24, 120.00 4. 04?20' south latitude; 81?45' west longitude (40 miles) "Bap Santillana." 5. A. K. Storm 532 476 do January 19_ 2 do 45, (00. 00 5. 03?37' south latitude; 81?50' west longitude (20 miles) "Bap De Los Heros." 6. Bold Venture 513 392 do January 18_ 2 do 31, 260.00 6. 03?48' south latitude; 81?41' west longitude (40 miles) "Bap San Martin." 7. Blue Pacific 509 115 do January 191 tin 40.620.00 , c,,,,A8' .outh latitude; ,.,'1.'41' west lc,r,gitt.ide (50 mks) "Bap San martin." S. White Star 286 673 no ianuary In 2 do 29, 340 00 8. 03?48' south latitude; 81?40' west longitude (40 miles) "Bap San Martin." 9. Hornet 289 761 do do 2 do 24, 180. 00 9. 03?40' south latitude-;- 81?52' west longitude (52 mites) "Bap De Los Hems." 10. Pacific Tradewinds 517 469 do do 2 do 33, 540. 00 10. 03'36' south latitude; 81?49' west longitude (46 miles) "Bap De Los Heron. 11. San Juan 289 819 do do 2 do 28, 440. 00 11. 03?37' south latitude; 81?50' west longitude (40 miles) "Bap De Los Heros." 12. City of Panama 514 57 do February 2_ 16 Ecuador 78, 880. 00 12. 0038' south latitude; 89?10' west longitude, vessel in distress 60 miles off Galapagos. Taken in tow 6 miles off San Cristobal by "Bae Cayambe." 13. American Queen 539 088 January 18_ _ January 19_ 2 Peru 26, 280.00 13. 04?00' south latitude; 81?39' west longitude (35 miles) ''Bap Sanchez Carrion." 14. Conquistador 531 005 do do 2 do 44, 040. 00 14. 04001' south latitude; 81032' west longitude (35 miles) "Bap Sanchez Carrion." 15. Jeanette C 511 483 do do 2 do 40, 620. 00 15. 04002' south latitude; 81?28' west longitude (35 miles) "Bap Sanchez Carrion." 1.-900014009000t109?0089/6:6% /0/60/1?00Z eSeeleti -10d peACLIddV l?-900014009000t108?0089/dCltl-VIO /0/60/1.00Z eseeletl JOd PeA0AdV 16. Voyager 533 143 do do 2 do 50, 340. 00 17. Pacific Queen 512 151 do do 2 do 28, 500.00 18. Balboa 536 441 do do 2 do 23, 640.00 19. Neptune 505 674 do do 2 do 27, 060. 00 20. Cape Cod 291 488 do do 2 do 26, 780. 00 21. Apollo 529 833 January 20_ January 21_ 2 do 53, 280. 00 22. Jacqueline Marie 536 794 January 22_ _ January 23_ 2 do 46, 030. 00 23. City of Lisboa 531 115 January 24 _ January 24_ 1 do 32, 220.00 24. Paramount 250 688 do do 1 do 10, 800. 00 25. Pacific Tradewinds 517 479 February 9 February 14 5 Ecuador 97, 538. 00 26. Neptune 505 674 do do 5 do 77, 882. 00 27. Clipperton 285 518 February 10 do 5 do 54, 404. 00 28. Gemini Total 534 721 January 16_ January 17_ 1 Peru 14, 620. 00 77 1, 065, 004. 00 16. 04?02' south latitude; 81?41' west longitude (29 miles) "Bap Sanchez Carrion." 17. 03?56' south latitude; 81?44' west longitude (34 miles) "Bap Sanchez Carrion." 18. 04?25' South Latitude; 81?48' west longitude (30 miles) "Bap Sanchez Carrion." 19. 03?56' south latitude; 81?44' west' longitude (36 miles) "Bap Sanchez Carrion." 20. 04?00' south latitude; 81?40' west longitude (45 miles) "Bap Sanchez Carrion." 21. 03?51' south latitude; 81?15' west longitude (24 miles)"Bap De Los Horns." 22. 04?15' south latitude; 81?50' west longitude (22 miles) "Bap Sanchez Carrion." 23. (33 miles) "Bap De Los Heron." 24. 04?49' south latitude 81?45' west longitude on miles) "Bap De Los Heron." 25. 00?24' north latitude; 91057 west longitude 360 miles) "Bae25 De Julio." 26. 01?08' northlatitude ;92?52" west longitude (95)mil es)"Bao 25 De Julia." 27. 00?20' north latitude; 92?33' west longitude (65 miles) "Bae 25 De Julio." 28. Entered port of Talara to obtain medical attention for two injured crew- members. Approved For Release 2001/09M : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 5)4 TABLE IL?AMOUNTS PAID TO FOREIGN COUNTRIES UNDER THE ACT OF AUG. 27, 1954, AS AMENDED [Distriburion of all claims by year of certification, number, country and by amount! Year Number Country Amount 1955 -.2 Ecuador $53, 481.20 1956__ None 1957 7 r Vlexico 3, 400. 00 1958__ 1 de 1, 200. 00 1 tEcuador 5, 881. 10 1959 2 Mexico 1, 400. 00 1960__ 11 do 20, 400. 00 1961 3 do 3, 400.00 1 Ecuador 3, 906.60 1 Panama 3, 500.00 1967 4 Mexico 1)400.06 1963 1 Colombia 1., 277.90 1 Ecuador_ 3, 504.00 2 Peru 15, 000. 00 12 Mexico 31, 600. 00 1964 1 Ecuador 11, 184. 00 5 Mexico 13, 184. 00 1965 1 Peru 1, 128. 00 2 i/lexico 6, 400. 00 9 loncto ran 45, 000.08 1966 1 Estombia 5, 000.00 3 loxico 6, 600. 00 1967 2 aanama 20, 000. 00 5 Scuador 51, 904. 00 7 eru_ 73, 696.00 1968 5 Ecuudor 211, 664.08 1969 5 Peru 53, 692.00 2 cuador 122, 575.00 1970 1'ecu 15, 072.00 2 Ecuador 133, 700.00 1971 2 eru 23, 684. 00 28 Ecuador 1, 342, 539. 00 1972 24 do 1, 533, 920. 00 1973 4 do 308, 704. 00 24 Peru 756, 300.00 Finei paid or Total certified Ecuador $4, 257, 558. 90 Peru 493, 976. 00 Mexico 114, 800.00 Honduras 45, 500. 00 Panama 23, 500.00 Colombia ,', 277.90 Total paid 4, 943, 112. 80 Note. -As of Oct. 26, 1972 Congress created the Fishermen's Protective Fund, a revoltring fund to be used by the Secretary of the Treasury to roimburse owners for amounts certified by the Secretary of State. Theretore, no listing is provided showing congressional appropriations such as formerly provided funds to the Secretary of the Treasury for the payment of certified Claims. Source: American Tunaboar Association. Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 l?-900014009000t108?0089/dCIU-VIO /0/60/1.00Z eseelet1 Jod peAwddv Name of vessel Country Claimant Amount paid Date of certification Date of seizure Congress Session Public law, number, and chapter Docu- ment No Sun Streak Ecuador Sun Pacific, Inc $12, 000.00 May 20, 1955 Sept. 4,1954 84th 1st P.L. 219, Ch. H.R.184R. 541. Artic Maid do Artie Maid Fisheries, Inc 43, 481. 20 July 19, 1955 Mar. 27, 1955 85th 1st P.L. 85-58 H.R. 156. Captain Mac Mexico Sea Garden Corp 1, 200. 00 Aug. 31957 Mar. 26, 1956 85th 1st P.L. 85-170 S. 60. Lucky Star do 0. W. Franks 1, 200. 00 Sept. 3,1957 (1) 85th 2d P.L. 85-352 H.R. 321. Captain Scotty do William L. Hardee 1, 200. 00 Sept. 19, 1957 (1) 85th 2d do Do. Sea Otter do N. A. Hardee, Jr. and I. D. Hardee I, 200. 00 Sept. 21, 1957 (1) 85th 2d do Do. Princess do William Hardee 1, 200. 00 do (9 85th 2d do Do. Ranger do Noble A. Hardee, Jr 1, 200. 00 Sept. 25, 1957 (1) 85th 2d do Do. Scotsman do Sea Garden Corp 1, 200. 00 Oct. 28, 1957 (1) 85th 2d do Do. Captain Wilson do Mrs Agnes S. Authement 1, 200. 00 Jan. 27, 1958 (1) 85th 2d do S. 80. Santa Anna Ecuador John Gradis, et al 5, 881. 10 Jan. 29, 1958 (1) 85th 2d do Do. Valley Sun Mexico Oliver J. Clark 1, 200. 00 Mar. 4,1959 (I) 86th 1st P.L. 86-30 S. 20. Ann Carinhas do Frances J. Carinhas 1, 200. 00 Mar. 11, 1959 (9 86th 1st do Do. Gail-D do Producers Marine Service 1, 600. 00 Apr. 7,1960 (9 86th 2d P.L. 86-722 H.R. 452. Little Man do Henry W. Humphreys 2, 400. 00 May 31, 1960 (9 86th 2d do Do. Captain Hansi do Curlen J. Kiffe 1, 600. 00 Mar. 20, 1961 (1) 87th 1st P.L. 87-14 S. 25. Cavalier do Harry S. Hirst 2, 400. 00 Dec. 29, 1960 (1) 87th 1st do Do. Georgia Pine do Elizabeth B. DeRick 2, 400. 00 Sept. 6, 1960 (1) 87th 1st do Do. Green Wave do Samuel M. Snodgrass 2, 400. 00 do (1) 87th 1st do Do. Miss Port Isabel do E. W. Catedra and C. H. Langford 2, 400. 00 Oct. 19, 1960 (I) 87th 1st do Do. Saratoga do 0. P. Smith and 0. D. Henslee 2, 000. 00 Sept. 6,1960 (I) 87th 1st do Do. Sherry Ann do A. E. Kern and J. Cerneka 2, 400. 00 Sept. 15, 1960 (C) 87th 1st do Do. Two Friends do Earl Lemaire 2, 400. 00 Oct. 25, 1960 (1) 87th 1st do Do. Valley King do Darrow Tregre 2, 400. 00 Dec. 13, 1960 (1) 87th 1st do Do. Valley Sky do Valley Fisheries Inc 1, 600. 00 Sept. 6,1960 (1) 87th 1st do Do. Jerry Ann do R. Letup Shrimp Co 2, 400. 00 Aug. 21, 1961 (1) 87th 1st P.L. 87-332_ ____ HR 229. Judy S Ecuador Pacific Clippers, Lief Bjorly, and Blue Pacific Inc 9, 906. 60 Apr. 4,1961 (1) 87th 1st do Do. Shamrock Panama E. V. Monteiro and Elvera V. Monteiro 2, 500. 00 July 20, 1960 Mar. 21, 1961 87th 1st do Do. Southern Pride Mexico V. F. Crofts and W. R. Lackey 2, 400. 00 June 28, 1961 (1) 87th lst do Do. Lucy Rae H do S. D. Hughston 2, 400. 00 May 28, 1962 (i) 88th 1st FL. 88-25 HR 90. Ramos Ace do W. D. Gooding 2, 400. 00 do (C) 88th 1st do Do. Captain Jingle do Sea Garden Corp 2, 400. 00 its (1) 88th 1st do Do. Valley Ace do Valley Fisheries Inc 3, 200.00 Nov. 30, 1962 (1) 88th lot do Do. San Joaquin Colombia F. M. Medina, et at 2, 277. 90 Jan. 7,1963 Feb. 12, 1962 88th 1st do Do. Valley Gold Mexico Darrow Trege 2, 400.00 Feb. 8, 1963 (1) 88th 1st do Do. Queenie B do Oscar D. Henslee and Francis H. Henslee 2, 400. 00 June 6,1963 (1) 88th lot H.R. 182. 0. W. Burton do Joaquim Games Carinhas 3,200.00 June 7, 1963 (1) 88th 1st Do. Lyco X do F. K. Lytle 3, 200.00 June 21, 1963 (1) 88th 1st Do. Captain do Hattie B. Cateora 3, 200. 00 July 8, 1963 (1) 88th 1st Do. Captain Scotty do William Love Hardee 2, 400. 00 July 11, 1963 (1) 88th 1st Do. Valley Wave do Valley Fisheries Inc 2, 400.00 July 12, 1963 (1) 88th 1st Do. John O'Callaghan do Sea Garden Corp 2, 400. 00 July 16, 1963 (1) 88th 1st Do. Valley Rio do Edward Joseph Jones 2, 400. 00 Sept. 3, 1963 (1) 88th I .t Do. , Unavailable 0/1.00Z aseeieu JOd peAoiddv 1.-9000147009000t108?0089/dCltl- 1.-900014009000t108?0089/dC1U-VIO : /0/60/1?00Z eseeieu Jod peAwddv CD 0 CD 0- 0 8 co ???1 . . >- *I 1:1 ???1 tri CO co tri tri Name of vessel Country Claimant Amount Dare of paid certification Date of seizure Congress Session Public law, number, and chapter Docu- ment No. Gem via Pine Chicken of the SeaPeru Western Ace_ Ranger C. W. Nugent BoLLeie Boy Southern Glory Lyco IX White Star Narco Jean Frances Arlene Davey Boy Jo Frances Dave W Sugar Daddy __ Thomas Michael Southland Big Daddy Miss Yvonne Eariine-G Valley Grande Clipperton Captain Nugent Captain Ramos Sea Eagle Day Island John O'Callaghan Day Island Sun Europa Endeavor Victoria Sea-Promo Ronnie S Do Pilgrim San Juan Day Island Caribbean Hornet Easte,o Poi.:iF.; Western King Mexico do Ecuador Mexico do do do Ecuador Mexico. do do Honduras do do do do d do do do Mexico Peru Mexico do do Colombia Mexico Panama do Ecuador do do do Peru do _do do do do an Ecuador Elizabeth B. DeRick Ponce Fishing Co., Inc Western Ace Co., In^ Harbor Boat and Yacht Inc Irene Nugent. jainee E. Weoe John Bunny Mills, Sr., Raymond Chester Canada, John Bunny Mills, Jr. F. K. Lytle White Star Fishing Co P. D. Labove B. K. Galloway et al R. LeLoup Shrimp Co Norman Jamsen S. T. Tringali do Gulf Shrimp Co., Inc do PInneet Shrimp Cn do do L. A. Cejka, et al J. M. Pafford Clipperton, Inc Deep Sea Trawlers Inc W. D. Parker, et at S.D. Augusta M/V Day Island Inc Sea Garden Corp M/V Day Island Inc S. Crivello, et al V.L. Morton, et al Victoria Fishing Co D.A. Marks, eta! T.J. Santos, et at. do United States Tuna Inc M/V San Juan Inc M/V Day Island Inc Sultana Fishing Co Mayaguez Fishing Co i. S. With iinac, tti. at Peter Pan Caribe Inc 3,7110.09- Sept. 3 1903 10,000.00 Sept. 9,1963 5,000.00 Sept. 17,1963 9,504.00 Oct. 18,1963 3,200.00 Dec. 17,1963 3,200.00 Dec. 27,1553 3,200.00 Jan. 28,1964 3,200.00 Feb. 7,1964 11,184.00 Feb. 20,1964 3,200.00 Oct. 2,1964 3,200.00 Oct. 28,1964 3,200.00 Nov. 2,1964 5,000.00 Mar. 24,1965 5,000.00 Mar. 16,1965 5,000.00 do 5,000.00 Mar. 23,1965 5,000.00 do 5.000.00 Mar. 24,1865 5,000.00 do 5,000.00 do 5,000.00 Mar. 23,1965 3,200.00 July 13,1965 7,128.00 Sept. 21,1965 3,200.00 Oct. 13,1965 1,200.00 Feb. 28,1966 1,200.00 Mar. 9,1966 5,000. Oct. 27,1966 00 3,200.00 Nov. 2,1966 10,000.00 Mar. 2,1967 10,000.00 do 8,064.00 Mar. 31,1967 8,448.00 do 12,528.00 Apr. 10,1967 12,768.00 June 28,1967 7,384.00 June 30,1967 11,512.00 July 17,1967 11,776.00 July 24,1967 12,160.00 do 10,888.00 Aug. 1,1967 10,072.00 do a, 504.00 do 18,096.00 Dec. 4,1967 (1). _ Oct. 28,1962 (1) May 25,1963 (1) (1) (1) (1) Oct. 5,1965 (9 (9 (9 (I)89thdn (9 (') (1) (5) (0 0) (') (1) (1) June 4,1965 (9 (9 (1) Feb. 3,1966 (1) May 12,1966 Mar. 3,1966 Jan. 7,1967 do Jan. 20,1967 Feb. 15,1967 Oct. 2,1966 May 23,1966 do do Jan. 26,1967 do Oct. i, 19bb July 4,1967 88th 88th 88th 88th 88th 88rn 88th 88th 88th 89th 89th 89th 89th 89th 89th 89th 09th 89th 89th 89th 89th 89th 89th 89th 89th 90th 90th 90th 90th 90th 90th 90th 90th 90th 90th 90th 90th 90th 90th bOth 90th lot 1st 1st 1st 1st 2ci 2d 2d 2d 1st lot 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st lot tot 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 2d 2d 2d 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 2d 2d 2d 2d 2d 2d 2d 2d 2d .__ P.L. 88-317 do do do do P.L 89-16 do do do do do do ,In do do do P.L. 89-309 do P.L. 89-426 do do P.1.90-21 do do do do do do P.L. 90-352 do do do do do do do do 11.0.182. Do. Do. Do. H.R. 300. Do. Do. Do. Do. H.R. 113. Do. Do. S. 1(1. Do. Do. Do. Do. Dc. Do Do. Do. HR. 283. S. 64. HR 414. Do. Do. HR 109. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. HR 254. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Ranger do Harbor Boat and Yacht Inc 9,504.00 Sept. 23,1968 Royal Pacific do J. S. Martinac, et al 34,580.00 Flow 6,1968 Eastern Pacific do do 51,940.00 Nov. 8,1?68 Connie Jean do Connie Jean, Inc 52,640.60 Nov. 6,1968 Pacific Queen do Cape San Vincent, Inc 63,000.00 do Day Island do M/V Day Island, Inc 81,375.00 Mar. 12,1969 Chicken of the Sea ,__ Peru White Star Fishing Company, Inc 2,900.00 Jan. 15,1969 Cape Ann . do Mayflower, Inc 8,732.00 Sept. 18,1969 Mariner do Mariner, Inc 10,824.00 do San Juan do M/V San Juan, Inc 18,164,00 do Western King do Peter Pan Caribe, Inc 15,072.00 do Caribbean Ecuador Sultana Fishing Co., Inc 41,200.00 Oct. 31,1969 Western King Peru Peter Pan Caribe, Inc 15,072.00 May 8,1970 Day Island Ecuador M/V Day Island, Inc 84,050.00 June 17,1970 City of Panama do Caribe Master, Inc 49,650.00 Nov. 3,1970 Anna Maria do Anna Maria, Inc 52,000.00 Mar. 31,1971 Antonina C do Louis Castagnola, Inc 39,850.00 Apr. 12,1971 Apollo do Ocean Blazer, Inc. and Apollo Ventures, Inc 86,650.00 do Neptune do San Simeon Fishing Co., Inc 42,950.00 do Captain Vincent Gann do Captain Vincent Gann, Inc 52,550.00 do Jeanette C do Frank M. Perry Corp 65,550.00 do Western King do Western King Co 38,050.00 do Blue Pacific do Blue Pacific, Inc 65,605.00 Apr. 15,1971 Nautilus do Pan Pacific Fisheries, Inc 42,950.00 Apr. 16,1971 Coimbra do M/V Coimbra, Inc 17,750.00 Apr. 19,1971 Western Ace Peru Del Monte ce Puerto Rico, Inc 5,480.00 Mar. 31,1971 Apollo Ecuador Ocean Blazer, Inc. and Apollo Ventures, Inc 155,340.00 May 4,1971 Day Island do MN Day Island, Inc 46,5C0.00 May 10,1971 John F. Kennedy do Ocean Fisheries, Inc 45,050.00 May 4,1971 Ocean Queen do Act Fisheries Co., Inc 69,100.00 Apr. 23,1971 Quo Vadis do Mr. R. A. Watt 48,150.00 May 12,1971 Sun Europa do Salvatore Crivello, et at 23,050.00 May 3,1971 Determined do John J. Cvitanich, et at 8,784.00 Nov. 1,1971 Paramount do Nick Marincovich, et al 21,760.00 do Bold Venture do Miss America, Inc 49,950.00 July 14,1971 Cape Cod do Cape Cod Sea Foods, Inc 44,150.00 do Puritan Peru Caribe Fishing Co., Inc 18,204.00 do hornet Ecuador Mayaguez Fishing Co., Inc 37,800.00 Aug. 6,1971 Lexington do do 33,800.00 do Caribbean do Sultana Fishing Co., Inc 74,160.00 Aug. 10,1971 Do do do 41,200.00 do Westport do Coronado Fisheries, Inc 32,150.00 Sept. 1,1971 United States do do 41,550.00 do Lois Seaver do do 24,750.00 do Concho do do 41,550.00 do 1 Unavalable. Feb. 15,1967 90th 2d P.L. 90-608 HR 393. Aug. 8,1968 91st 1st P.L. 91-47 HR 91-1. do 91st 1st do Do. do 91st 1st do Do. do 91st 1st do Do. Dec. 10,1968 91st 1st do Do. Oct. 23,1968 91st 1st do Do. Mar. 19,1969 91st 1st P.L. 91-166 Do. Mar. 14,1969 91st 1st do Do. Mar. 19,1969 91st 1st do Do. May 16,1969 91st 1st do Do. June 19,1969 91st 1st do Do. Feb. 23,1970 91st 2d P.L. 91-305 S 91-86. Feb. 25,1970 91st 2d P.L. 91-669 S 91-420. Feb. 14,1970 91st 2d do Do. Jan. 15,1971 92d 1st P.L. 92-18 H 92-103. Jan. 18,1971 92d 1st do Do. Jan. 17,1971 92d 1st do Do. Jan. 22,1971 92d 1st do Do. Jan. 18,1971 92d 1st do Do. Jan. 27,1971 92d 1st do Do. do 92d 1st do On. Jan. 18,1971 92d 1st do Do. Feb. 24,1971 92d 1st do Do. Jan. 27,1971 92d lot do On. Apr. 17,1970 92d 1st do Do. Mar. 3,1971 92d lot 1st P.L. 92-49 Sec. 501. Jan. 23,1971 92d 1st do Do. Feb. 10,1971 92d 1st do Do. Jan. 18,1971 92d 1st do Do. Jan. 21,1971 92d 1st do Do. Jan. 27,1971 92d 1st do Feb. 15,1967 92d 1st 1st P.L 92-184 S. 92145. Mar. 20,1968 92d 1st do Do Jan. 15,1971 92d 1st do H.R. 92-164. Jan. 18,1971 92d 1st do Do. Mar. 30,1971 92d 1st do Do. Jan. 19,1971 92d 1st do Do. Jan. 11,1971 92d 1st do Do. . Mar. 27,1971 92d lot do On. Jan. 23,1971 92d 1st do Do. Feb. 20,1971 92d lot do Do. Feb. 27,1971 92d 1st do Do. do 92d 1st do Do. do 92d 1st do Do. Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Name of vessel Country Claimant Amount Date of paid certification Date of seizure Congress Session Public law, number, and chapter Docu- ment No. c..0 Cf) Elsinore A. K. Strom Cheryl Marie Wiley V. A Eileen M Ocean Queen Ronnie S Mary S Trinidad Endeavor Vivian Ann Blue Meridian Bernadette Lexington Royal Pacific Connie Jean Blue Meridian A. K. Strom New Era Western King Puritan City of Lisbon Anna Maria John F. Kennedy J. M. Martinac Eastern Pacific Cabrillo Ecuador Anne M do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do Cam.= Fish!r.g 2' , 'lc George Norman Zeluff, et al Delta Fishing Co., Inn Liberty King, Inc The Ambrose Co Zeta Fishing Co., Inc Ace Fisheries Co., Inc Thomas Joseph Santos, et at Alpha Fishing Co., Inc Ocean Fisheries, inc The Ambrose Co., et al Vivian Ann Fisheries, Inc Global Fisheries, Inc uristiano G. Da Rosa, et al Mayaguez Fishing Co Ocean Fisheries, Inc Connie Jean, Inc Global Fisheries, Inc Delta Fishing Co., Inc New Era, Inc Western King Co Fortuna Caribe, Inc City of Lisbon, Inc Anna Maria, Inc Ocean Fisheries, Inc do do Joseph P. Soares, et al M. 0. Medina, et al Castle and Cook 4E, 1.3.3. 02 Ma:-. 7, 1072 17, 200.00 Mar. 10, 1972 73, 850.00 Mar. 15, 1972 50, 900. 00 do 22, 350.00 Mar. 16, 1972 74, 150. 00 Apr. 13, 1972 124, 380.00 do 48, 230.00 do 46, 250. 00 do 59, 650. OI do_ 17, 150. 00 June 1,1972 37, 700. 00 do 32, 400. 00 cln 19, 0011. 00 May 16, 1972 60, 840. 00 do 24, 700. 00 do 68, 030. 00 June 20,1972 58, 670. 00 July 21, 1972 132, 650. 00 do 7, 200. 00 Aug. 24, 1972 68, 210.00 Sept. 14, 1972 46, 400. 00 do 51, 200. 00 do 83, 200. 00 do 80, 460. 00 Apr. 13, 1972 38, 350. 00 do 37, 450. 00 do 44, 950. 03 do 22, 250. 00 do 45, 050. 00 Apr. 20, 1972 N 0 V . 2,, 1971 Nov. 13, 1971 do Nov. 12, 1971 Nov. 18, 1971 Dec. 4,1971 do Dec. 9, 1971 Nov. 12, 1971 Nov. 10, 19/1 Nov. 12, 1971 Nov. 23, 1971 Nov. 10, 1971 Nov. 25, 1971 Jan. 11, 1971 Nov. 12, 1971 Nov. 24, 1971 Jan. 17, 1972 Jan. 14, 1972 Jan. 7,1967 Jan. 8, 1972 Jan. 15, 1972 do Jan. 9,1972 Nov. 24,1971 do Nov. 12, 1971 Nov. 13, 1971 Nov. 18, 1971 Nov. 19, 1971 221 92d 92d 92d 92d 92d 92d 924 92d 920 92d 924 92d 924 924 924 924 924 92d 92d 92d , 92d 92d 92d 92d 92d 92d 924 924 92d 2.1 2d 2d 2d 24 24 2d 2d 24 24 2d 2d 2d 2d 24 2d 2d 24 24 2d 24 24 24 2d 24 2d 24 2d 24 2d -.L. 22-303 do do do do do do do do do P.L. 92-607 do do do do do do do do do do do do do P.L. 92-306 do do do do do S. 72-/ Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. H.R. 92- 368, Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. S. 92-71. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 INTERIM FISHERIES ZONE EXTENSION AND MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1973 FRIDAY, APRIL 19, 1974 U.S. SENATE, COMMERCE COMMITTEE, San Francisco, Calif. The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9 a.m. in the Ceremonial Courtroom, Federal Building, IIon. John V. Tunney presiding. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TUNNEY Senator TUNNEY. The hearing will come to order. Today marks the second of two hearings in California on the most important issue presently facing the California fishing industry. The proposed legislation we will be considering calls for a sub- stantial extension of the United States' capability to regulate fishing in our coastal waters. Under this legislation, the present 12-mile contiguous fisheries zone would be extended up to 200 miles, giving the Federal Government vastly increased power to control foreign fishing fleets. This legislation also would significantly extend the claims of U.S. jurisdiction over domestic anadromous fish, such as salmon' even to ranges far beyond the proposed 200-mile limit. This legislation is expressly interim in nature and would terminate as soon as the Law of the Sea conference now in progress puts into force a treaty re- garding fisheries jurisdiction and conservation. At a meeting at San Francisco's wharf last summer, I met with northern California salmon fishermen who alerted me to serious problems of foreign intrusion and fisheries depletion along this coast. As a result of that meeting and further discussions I have held, I have requested the Commerce Committee, of which I am a member, to schedule hearings in California to gather complete documentation of the facts and the position of California's fishing industry as it relates to this issue. The issues are complex, and no simple solution is possible. In San Diego yesterday, I listened to testimony by representatives of the California tuna industry. Witnesses expressed fears that establish- ment of a unilateral 200?mile limit would have an extremely detri- mental effect on sectors of the Nation's tuna and shrimp industries. It is widely felt that extension of this Nation's contiguous fishing zone, even on an interim basis, would be blatant violation of international law, threatening the viability of the Fishermen's Protective Act of 1967, and provoking serious international incidents. (599) 36-709-74-pt. 3 10 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 600 On the other hand, I am well aware of great concern on the part of coastal fishermen that their industry is rapidly becoming an endangered species. I have received reports of serious depletion of the coastal fishery resources, due to large-scale harvesting- by foreign vessels, which do not employ conservation practices, which our own vessels are required to utilize. Many feel that this rapid depletion, sped um by an ever-increasing concentration of foreign off-shore -fishing, will destroy chances of a restoration of the supply of this resource, regardless of what action is taken by the Law of the Seas Conference in the next few years. . It is my belief that the task we face is to assure that we will conserve California's extremely valuable coastal fisheries resources withont jeopardizing protection of our crucial tuna fleets. F - am holding tihese hearings in order that T may provide the Senn) e with as much information as :possible from representatives of all sectors of California's fishing industry and from interested environmental and conservation groups, enabling the Senate to act more icn.owledfreably on this vital issue. Clearly. an. issue such as this, where millions of dollars and thousands of California jobs are potentially at staLe, it is essential that the views of concerned Cali- fornians are fully on the record for the use of the Commerce Com- mittee and the Congress. I would like to note at this point My deep appreciation to Bill Grader of Fort Bragg for his valuable assistance in helping to organize this hearing in San Francisco today. Bill is an invaluable resource of information about the important issues of the northern coast of California, and I am always deeply grateful for his help. The witnesses who will appear today represent many different segments of the northern California fishing industry and come. to San -Francisco from as far away as ' Santa Barbara and Eureka. In addition, we will hear from governmental agencies and conser- vation and recreation organizations, all of whom have a vested interest in the important issues we will discuss today. wont to receive, the views of all sides and all groups in detail. My intent is to see to it that the interests of all concerned are served by whatever legislation ultimately comes out of the Con- gress. h that, T nill call the first witness, the Honorable Barry Keene. Assemblym in of California, Second District. (;ood morning. Mr. -KErns7E. Good. morning. STATEMENT OF BARRY KEENE, ASSEMBLYMAN, 2D DISTRICT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA Mr. .IKEENTE. Mr. Chairman, I'm Assemblyman Barry Keene. I represent the north coastal counties of California in the State As- semb-I y from Marin County up to the Oregon border. Fishine- is a major industry in my district. Both commercial and sports fishing contribute significantly to the economy of the north coast of California, and., of course, the well-being of my constituents. More importantly lhongh, food from the sea increases in significance daily for an increasingly protein-short human diet worldwide. Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/09/0T4j1CIA-RDP751300380R000500410005-1 I want- to express my sincere appreciation to you, Senator, for holding this hearing here today so that Californians who have deep concern over ominous threats to our fishery resources can make their views know to your committee and to the Congress. And I wish to thank you for your earlier demonstration made -informally last . year in San Francisco of a group of fishermen of the north coast. I support S. 1988's proposal for a 200-mile jurisdictional zone for coastal fisheries. I support it because it is our best hope for saving our coastal fishery resources, resources which appear to be seriously threatened, and which we know far too little about. There are some things, however, that we unfortunately do know. We do know that these resources are limited, in some cases quite limited. We do know that foreign fishing fleets, often 'government supported, with their large and swift modern vessels, possess the capability of wiping these resources out. We need only review, T think, our own sad experience with the seemingly limitless sardine resources that were effectively destroyed by our own relatively small fishing boats back in the 1940's. We do know that when the Soviets continue to take massive quan- tities of hake and ocean perch, if that is all they take, that the critical food balances of the ocean is changed. What we do not know is the effect of this sudden and dramatic change. We -do know that our own trawlers now experience difficulty in finding ocean perch, and that the supply of hake in some parts of the Pacific is reported to be dwindling. We do not know if the Soviets, the Japanese, and the Koreans are taking our salmon, but we do know that they have the capability to do so; and, of course, the inspection procedures are grossly inade- Oat?. We do not know if they are damaging our Dungeness crab, but we do know that something is certainly causing the disappearance of those crab. We also know that we restrict our fishermen by season, by gear, by size limit, by the, areas of fishery, and in many other ways, in an effort to conserve our resources, but the foreign fishermen take any amount, any size, anywhere, "anytime, utilizing highly efficient but hardly selfsustaining fishing techniques. Just this year, the California Legislature in a conservation effort enacted a law placing a 500-ton quota on the take of herring. 'Without venturing to say whether or not this is a realistic quota, I simply point out that the Polish sailors, due here next year to fish our anchovy stock, can take twice those 500 tons in a single set. The saddest part of the whole thing is that we are just beginning domestically to wake up to the necessity for conservation measures. Now, it may be much too late. We are severely restricting American industry from dumping our wastes into the oceans in an effort to maintain a healthy environment for our ocean resources. We now have aquaculture scientists and technicians who are beginning to .study ecological systems whose survival we no loriger take for granted. We are also seeing the flow of public and private moneys into fish hatcheries and rearing ponds. Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 602 Witnesses who will appear later will testify in greater detail on these matters. Let me just point out that while we agree that the three species concept is probably the best long-term approach to management of ocean fishery resources, the Law of the Sea Conference is yet to be convened, and agreements worked out at that conference, if agree- ments can be reached, will be many years in their application. And our horse may well be gone from the barn if we wait. The three species concept is a statesmanlike approach, and we applaud it. I think it is past time that we employ some aggressive conservation techniques now, so that we have something left to act like statesmen about later. Therefore, I respectfully urge you, .Senator, to press for passage of S. 1988 to help save our fishery resources. Thmtk you very much. Senator TUNNEY. Thank you very: much, Assemblyman Keene.. T know of your very dedicated and sincere interest in protecting the fishing industry in northern California and I've had the opportunity to speak to you about this problem at considerable length, since you and I have become responsible to our respective electorates for meeting their needs. I held a hearing in San Diecro yesterday on this matter and we had two Congressmen from the San Diego region that testified very strongly in opposition to this bill. They really made it very e ear that they thought it was a devilish inspiration behind the drafting of the legislation, and they said that it would do severe damage to the, commune of San Francisco; it would destroy the tunatishino; industry; and that it was a representative violation of international law; that this was unilateral action on the part of the United States,. which showed that we had no con fidence in the Law of the Seas Conference; that Mexico would follow suit; and there were many other arguments that were advanced, in opposition. NOW, I recognize that you have to, represent your constituents and represent my constituents, and they represent their constituents. Tt just so happens that my constituents are 22 million in the entire State of California. T wonder if you have had an opportunity to evaluate this legisla- tion from the perspective of the tuna:fishing industry and, if you have, what your conclusions are as to the impact of this legislation on that industry, which the tuna fishermen argue is 85 percent of the total :fishing industry in California. Mr. KEFNE. F believe that there would be some very beneficial effects for the tuna industry in the long rim resulting from this legislation because I believe that this legislation would spur on the Law of the Seas Conference, and create leverage to bring about reasonable agreement, and I believe that so long as this legislation would be recognized as an interim measure until such agreement is reached with a more. statesmanlike approach worldwide, we would expect in the three species concept that it would be beneficial. I believe it would not be injurious to the tuna industry and perhaps they feel that they're taking unnecessary risks in. supporting this kind of legiSlation? but certainly from the standpoint of the fishermen Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/O9/ : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 in other parts of California, in other parts of the Pacific Coast, they would not feel it would be any reasonable risk. The hope would be, however, it would ultimately spur a more sensible result world- wide, something like the three species concept. Senator TUNNEY. Well, thank you very much, Assemblyman. I sin- cerely appreciate your contribution to these proceedings and the statement that you made shows that you have given a great deal of thought to the problem, and I think that your assistance in our deliberations is very valuable, and I want to thank you personally. Mr. KEENE. Thank you, Senator. Senator TUNNEY. Our next witness is Vice Adm. Mark A. Whalen, 'Commander, 12th Coast Guard District, San Francisco. Admiral, it's a great pleasure having you here. We thank you very much for making yourself available for testimony to our committee. Admiral WHALEN. Yes, Sir. Senator TUNNEY. Thank you. Will you proceed. STATEMENT OF VICE ,ADM. MARK A. WHALEN, 12TH COAST GUARD DISTRICT, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. Admiral WHALEN. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I appreciate the opportunity to be here today to furnish you in- formation concerning proposed legislation to extend the contiguous fisheries zone of the United States to 200 miles. I am Vice Adm. Mark A. Whalen, USCG, Commander of the Pacific Area and Comdr. of the 12th Coast Guard District. I have with me Comdr. Gordon H. Dickman, USCG, Chief of the Intel- ligence and Law Enforcement Branch, 12th Coast Guard District. I would ask your permission, Senator, to have Commander Dickman participate in this hearing. Senator TUNNEY. Of course. It's a pleasure to have you here. Commander DICKMAN. Thank you. Admiral Wit ALEN. In my position as Commander, 12th Coast Guard District, I have the responsibility to carry out all statutory missions of the Coast Guard in my area of authority, among which, of course, are Coast Guard responsibilities for enforcement of fish- eries laws and treaties. This statement reflects my official and per- sonal views, but does not have formal administration clearance, due to the fact that the 'administration's position on this question is presently being formulated. I would like first to outline the nature of foreign fishing opera-- tions off northern California, indicate what the Coast Guard re- sponse has been in our enforcement mission, and then comment on the proposed extension of the contiguous zone. The Soviet Union has been the major foreign fishing nation to conduct operations off the California Coast in recent years. Their efforts have been directed at catching Pacific Hake rMerluciuss Productus], a fish which is little utilized in the United States. For the most part, Pacific Hake fishery is conducted off Oregon and Washington, although during 2 of the past 4 years, a relatively large Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 604 number of Soviet vessels have appeared off northern California, especially near the beginning of the season. There is no question that there has been an increase in the num- ber of Soviet f shing vessels which have been operating off the northern California coast in the last few years. In addition to the increasing numb r, there has been a change in patterns. From 1970 to 1972, the Soviet fishermen started their activities in the area between Eureka, Calif. and Coos Bay, Ore., with an average num- ber of vessels of 10 to 14, with very little activity south of Cape Mendocino.. In 1973, however, we found that fishing activities began as early as May, further south off the Farallon Islands, and then moved north. The pattern for 1974 is following that of 1973, except that the Soviets have now appeared in March and in greater num- bers. Fourteen Soviet vessels began operating south of the Farallons in March, and there are 32 operating in the area at the present time. Senator TENNEY'. There are 32 now? Admiral WHALEN. Yes, sir. This is, of course, the greatest num- ber of Soviet vessels ever to have operated off California at any one time, although it is only about 40 percent of the maximum number of Soviet vessels operating off the combined area of Ore- gon, Washington, and northern California last year. The only other foreign nation. to have conducted fishing off northern California recently has been Japan, which has usually had three or four vessels operating about 50 miles off the coast in the past 4 years. There has been no reported Japanese fishing off north- ern California so far in 1974.. One East German and one Polish vessel operated off the Oregon and Washington coasts last year, conducting a halze fishery similar to the Soviets. My second point. With regard to our enforcement program, we utilize aircraft end vessels from all three Coast Guard District Commands on the West Coast. The current concept is to use air- craft to locate the concentrations of , foreign fishing vessels and to identify the -vessels which are present. This is accomplished in northern California by aircraft from San Francisco, which conduct two patrols weelrly from Santa Cruz, Calif. to Coos Bay, Oreg., during the fishing, season. Cutters are assigned to fisheries patrol duty in such a way that one cutter is always on patrol duty throughout the fishing season. This cutter is deployed in the area of major foreign fishing vessel concentration, and in coniurction with patrol aircraft insures that U.S. laws are enforced, bilateral agreements are respected, and. the activity of every Foreign fishing vessel operating off the West Coast is identified. Furthermore., the 12th Coast Guard District maintains other cutters and aircraft. in readiness to investigate complaints of illegal activity, or to conduct routine patrols of different elements of the foreign fishing fleet when the foreign fishing fleet divides into different areas of operation. Individual statistics are available, as regards aircra ft and ship hours devoted to this mission, if de- sired. The third point. With regard to the proposed extension of the contiguous lisherios zone. I would first like to state that the respon- sibility for developing and presenting to the Congress the admin- Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 605 istration's position on this question is vested in the interagency task force on Law of the Sea. This body comprises representatives from the Departments of State, Defense, Commerce, Treasury, Interior, Transportation, and Justice and from the Council on Environ- mental Quality, Environmental Protection Agency, and the Office of Management and Budget. The position being developed is pres- ently being cleared within the executive branch. Basically, the position being cleared recognizes the problems of U.S. fishermen the potential depletion of our natural resources, and the need fishermen, a solution. It is believed, however, that the best solution can be obtained through multilateral agreement at the forthcoming Law of the Sea Conference in Caracas, Venezuela, in June of this year. It is my opinion that unilateral action at this time might serve to undermine the Law of the Sea Conference. The administration has proposed that any agreement reached by the Law of the Sea Conference take effect on a provisional basis im- mediately, pending entry into force of the treaty. The Coast Guard defers to the interagency task -force, as regards the administration's position in the proposed extension of the contiguous fisheries zone. The Coast Guard will, of course, cooperate fully with Congress in developing and furnishing any information necessary. If the contiguous fisheries zone is extended to 200 miles, the im- pact on the Coast Guard's enforcement mission off California would be directly dependent on the extent to which foreign fishing is per- mitted in this zone. Although the fishing areas are known and con- stitute a narrow band well within even a 100-mile zone, and the season is predictable, it is felt that if the proposed extension be- comes law, additional resources would be required. Extending jurisdiction over anadromous species originating in the -U.S. waters, would be difficult to enforce outside of the con- tiguous fisheries zone. In the absence of jurisdiction by the Coast Guard to board foreign vessels on the high seas, it would be nearly impossible to obtain evidence necessary for successful prosecution or to substantiate a formal protest. In summation I realize that a few of our fishermen feel that the Coast Guard enforcement position in California waters is not as extensive as it should be, but I do not agree with this premise. I feel that we have a very accurate picture of where the foreign fishing fleet is operating, that we have vessels and aircraft conducting sur- veillance at the required level, and I know we will continue to do so. The Soviets know we are there, and I feel they are extremely careful not to violate the existent zone, due to the always present potential of being apprehended. I believe that we should defer any unilateral extension of the contiguous zone until multilateral agreement can be reached by the Law of the Sea Conference, which we all know will have as its objective the improvement of the existing situation. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity to be here. I'll be happy to endeavor to answer any questions which you may have, sir. Senator Tric-Nr.v. Admiral, thank you very imich. I particularly appreciate the fact that you gave us your personal opinions at a Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 fl06 time when the administration has yet to formulate a basic policy approach. It would have been very easy for you to say that inas- much as the administration has not formulated that policy, that you are, taking the bye on offering any personal opinion, and I think that it's helpful to have your views, your frank views. I am concerned about the question of the penetration of the Soviet trawlers and fishing boats, as well as the fishing boats of other l'oreirrn nations into the 12-mile limit, as well as any proposed extension of that limit out to 200 miles. I've heard a number of fishermen say they are convinced that the, foreign fishing boats are operating within the 12-mile limit and that because of the Coast Guard's 'imited resources and inability to adequately patrol_ the fishing zone, that you just aren't catching them. Would you care to comment on Cud? Admiral -WHALEN. Yes, sir. I would. I know this is a controversial question, particularly around the Eureka area. I've been up there many times on meetings, as well as other types of professional dis- enssions, and to use a trite expression, sir, different ships, different long splices. T can't say that an incursion has never taken place. It would be foolish of me to make such a statement. I feel though that what I've outlined, the aircraft capability and the vessel patrols that we run, that I think we've been carrying out the maximum enforcement that is called for at the time. I'm well aware of dif- ferences of opinion sir; I'm very conversant with it; but I must take the stand on what we do and how we operate, the number of air- craft. horns and ships available that we have. I feel the required efforts to preclude entry. I cannot say it is, of course, 100 percent effective. That would be a foolish statement for me to make. Senator 'PUNNET". It's also impossible to prove the negative. Admiral Wieverax. Yes, sir. Senator Tr:NWT:Y. There's ro way that any of us can do that. I'm interested with respect to your procedures. If you were to catch a Soviet trawler within the 12--mile limit, what would you do? Admiral WHALEN. We would board and seize and bring them in. This procedure has been followed, sir. Within the last 8 to 9 months, Ibis fiscal year, there have been several seizures up in Alaska and the procedure is very well established. The violation is proved by the feet that we have our position, we know where he is, we know he's inside, and then they are boarded, seized, and taken into the nearest, port for required action. Senator TUNNEY. If the zone were extended out, if the territorial waters were extended out to 200 miles, would that substantially increase the area that you would have to patrol in order to protect our fisheries? You mentioned. in your statement that the fishing areas are somewhat circumscribed, and I would like to know what you feel the impact would be on your patrol procedures in order to protect the fisheries and how much more in the way of money and manpower would be needed to adequately enforce the 200- mile territorial limit. Admiral -WITALE-Ni. If we begin from the premise, sir, that it's complete exclusion, and you will note, as I mentioned in my state- ment, that increase of our enforcement capability would be de- Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/09/07: CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 607 pendent upon what is finally resolved. If, for example, there were certain zones within the 200 miles that were set aside that could be fished by foreign fishing vessels at certain times of the year, or if we aimed at a specific type of fish or in the areas of greatest fishing potential these variables would govern. However, if there was com- plete exclusion from 200 miles off our coast and the Coast Guard was required to insure the fact that no foreign fishing vessel were permitted into that zone, then we have, I am certain, figures here to indicate what potential we would need, particularly of surface craft. Senator TENNEY. What is that? If they're very extensive, maybe you could give them to us for the record. Admiral WHALEN. I'd be pleased to insert them in the record, sir. Senator TENNEY. Fine. Could you just give us orally a summa- tion of what it would be? [The following information was subsequently received for the record:] 12th COAST GUARD DISTRICT COASTAL FISHERIES ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY?FISCAL YEARS 1970-74 Year Vessel days on Aircraft hours on patrol patrol 1970 71 SO 1971 84 264 1972 95 232 1973 93 377 1974, Apr. 19, 1974 45 173 Projected fiscal year 1974 102 ___ ADDITIONAL RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS The following are estimated costs for additional resources which may be re- quired if a 200 mile Contiguous Fisheries Zone (CFZ) were established. Type of resource Annual operating costs (each) Activation costs (each) Acquisition costs (each) High endurance cutters (HEC) 2, 800, 000 1 1, 100, 000 22, 000, 000 Medium endurance cutters (MEC) 1, 100, 000 10, 800, 000 Long-range seaich aircraft (LRS) 1, 140, 000 3, 329, 000 Medium-range search aircraft (MRS) 600, 000 2, 810, 000 Helicopters for shipboard use 276, 000 ?100, 000 Support (1) 16 HEC Cutters currently in. reserve for servicewide use. 2 17 HH52 Helicopters currently in reserve for servicewide use. 1 Approximately 10% additional. Resource requirements would be predicated on a number of variables. These variables include enforcement approach, degree to which foreign activity would be permitted within CFZ, and seasonal, species or methodology controls imposed in CFZ or on anadromous species. CONCEPTS OP OPERATION I. Cutters 60 miles apart along 200-mile perimeter with aircraft coverage of the zone twice weekly. 2. Cutters 400 miles apart along 200-mile perimeter with aircraft coverage of the zone twice weekly. 3. Cutters patrol active foreign fishing areas with aircraft coverage of the zone twice weekly. 'Approved For Release 2001/09/07: CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 608 Admiral WILALEN. Yes, sir, I could. It would depend, of course, on what type of patrol we thought was necessary. If, for example, we decided we had to have a line of ships 60 miles apart, and I'm speak- ing solely on the west coast?surface patrols run 60 miles apart. We have at the present time 6 high endurance cutters that could be reactivated at a cost of a,ct,ivating each vessel of $1 million and the operating cost, is $2.8 million for each vessel to be reactivated and to be manned and operated around the clock during the fishing season. The next type vessel we would use, we call a medium endurance cutter. The operational cost of those vessels, and these are past figures, sir, that we can utilize, is $1 million for a year's operation. won't get into the details of different type of aircraft, long range search, medium range search, II1I-52's, which. are the helicopters that may have -Oeen put aboard the vessels. The reactivation cost I think is most cogent. We have some 17 of these HH-52's in the boneva id right now. By boneyard, I don't mean they're not fit to operate. They just have been kept in supply for any future particu- lar need. Tim reactivation cost is $100,000 to have these aircraft put back in operation. I f we extend it out and say have vessels 400 miles apart patrolling, the cost then would be reduced; but, in summation, if we had to carry out full abstention within the area of 200 miles, it would be mandatory that the Coast Guard have increased capability for air- craft, and vessels to so do. Senator TUNNEY. New, are we talking just about the coast of California, or are we talking about the entire Pacific, Coast? Admiral WHALEN. I'm talking of the entire Pacific Coast, other than Alaska, sir. This does not apply to the enforcement procedures and patrols in Alaska. The procedure's apply, but as far as any neces- ity of desire, as to what has to be done in the Alaskan patrol waters, Inv comments here only refer and particularly they refer to my area of responsibility, namely this 12th Coast Guard District, which runs from the Oregon line, down to the south of San Luis Obispo: The general picture gave you, sir, of increased patrol, I am then speaking of the California coast, Oregon, but not Alaska. Senator TTTNNEY. Washington too? A Elm hal WHALEN% Sir? Sceator TUNNEY. Washington, sir? Albniral WFIALEN. Washington, yes, sir. Senator TTTNNEY. I did not copy down the figures as you an- nounced them. T was wondering if you could just give me a general rough estimate of what that, would, mean per year in additional ex- penditures for the Coast Guard. Admiral WHALEN. The reason it's a little difficult, sir, is that the decision has not, been reached as yet, of course, in taking upon the Law of the Seas Conference, as to what type of enforcement we would ob to. Senator "PUNNET.. T understand that completely. You've made that extremely clear in your statement and it's very helpful. I'm just wondering if you had complete exclusion when you used those. figures, what you were talking about. Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 609 Admiral WHALEN. Well, let's take for example, sir, right now, if we'll back up a minute, we have in the 12th Coast Giiard District two medium cutters. In the 13th district, Which runs from the Oregon line north, there are four. Now, those are the vessels I have referred to that are carrying out the job at the present time, and there's an additional one vessel in the Long Beach area which participates in the patrol. Rather than having one vessel say on patrol, as we do, as the season picks up, we have two. If we decided, for example, we had to have six vessels out there at all times, I'm going to strike an average between the operational cost of the high endurance cutter, our major vessel,- and the medium endurance cutter, which is a smaller type ship, averaging out at about, rounded off, $2 million per vessel operating cost, this is a 12?month figure, so I would say, sir, that per vessel I would say $2 million as an average cost, if six were out there all the time. I'm giving you the maximum now for complete exclusions. Senator TUNNEY. SO that would be what, $12 million? Admiral WHALEN. Yes, sir. Senator TUNNEY. And how about support? Admiral WHALEN. rill sorry, sir? Senator TUNNEY. How- about support? Admiral WHALEN. The figures I gave you, sir' are only in the area when operational cost for the vessel, hen the cost, issue is brought up, and full exclusion was the law of the land, there's going to have to be support as far as potential additional administrative costs, as well as additional cost facilities. I'm not trying to paint a gloomy picture, sir. I'm trying to be as factual as I can to explain this point of increased support if we get into full exclusion. Senator TUNNEY. When we talk about a reasonable figure for support, are we talking about a quarter of what the operating expenses are for the vessels, another 25 percent to support? What is the ratio in your own budgetary considerations? You must have a lot of experience in this area. Are we talking another 25 or 50 percent for support? Admiral Wiria,EN. No, sir. I don't think the figure would be in that high an area at all. I may be conservative, but I'd rather be on the conservative side than the side that's going to exaggerate. I would say .10 percent possibly, and here again I say the reactivation of the vessels and the operating cost of them would be the greatest. When I mentioned port facilities and administration costs, realizing we're talking about the whole coast of California, I don't think there would be too much additional cost to worry about as far- as. port support and what's needed to accomplish such as that, sir. Senator TUNNEY. Do these vessels and aircraft that you presently have patrolling and that you would, if you had to have patrol a 200- mile territorial limit, have more than one mission? Admiral WrrAnnw. They do. As a matter of fact, sir, the Coast Guard is an eight-mission organization. These vessels perform these eight missions right now, and I'll 171111 down very generally what they are, sir. We had a hearing on environmental protection, which as we know, the matter of polluting of our environment is one of the Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP751300380R000500410005-1 610 nation's major concerns at the present time. Our vessels and aircraft are used for regularly scheduled pollution patrols and for other Ina ri time law enforcement purposes, Which, of course, we're diseassing right now, is an issue. Same thing, U.S. Merchant Marine, military readiness of the Coast Guard, oceanography, meteorology, and polar operations, port safety, Coast Guard Reserve, and the most important in my opinion, search and rescue, saving people's lives. The vessels and aircraft that the Coast Guard have are not sole mission dedicated. They'r(it multimission vessels, sir, and aircraft. Senator TTTNNEY. If you had these additional ships on the line, would they be able to assist you to perform your other missions to a greater extent that is presently possible of the number of ships and aircraft that you have on the line? Admiral WHALEN By all means, Senator. Any increase of potential in our whole business whereby we have. additional aircraft and addi- tional vessels, and they again would not be dedicated merely to the one mission of maritime law enforcement would be helpful. This would, of course, increase our capability to do our job in the other areas that if enumerated, sir. Senator TENNEY. Well, I for one have felt that the Coast Guard has been underfunded in order to accomplish the mission that we expect from them, and I realize that there are priorities in our defense budget, but I've felt that the Coast Guard could use an additional amount, that you perform an extremely valuable service to the American people, and I am not sure that an argument ought to be used against these additional seacraft just because it would increase the expense in. order to patrol the 200-mile limit,. Maybe we'll need those additional cutters and seacraft to perform 1:hose other missions. Do you care to.respond? Admiral WHAT ,EN. Well, Senator, I appreciate that comment. In about 2 months. be retiring from. the Coast Guard with some 41 years of service, and I know of What I speak as far as maybe never having enough. Looking back, We've gone a long way, but we still have more in our lap than we have the capability in some areas to do the job with. Senator TtriNstoiv. With increased tanker traffie from Alaska, '.vhat is your attitude with respect to having more Coast Guard vessels out at sea to patrol those tankers? Admiral WHALEN. I believe you're speaking, sir, of the ultimate Transalaska Pipeline, coming down from there ultimately. We are already working on one facet of that as far as up in the 17th Coast Guard District is concerned, of establishing traffic lanes. Also, look- ing ahead 'as far as?assuming fo]. thsN purpose of discussion that one of these big water hangars are established out in San Fran- cisco--A s you knew, we've drafted ,..otne of the vessels that ultimately will be used in this. They exceed anything in San Francisco Harbor. This is going to be an additional load; there's 110 question of it; am this eorries right, in the area of marine environmental protection. Whether or not the Coast Chuird was considering or will get to escort any of these vessels down. similar say to World War II convoy duty, that the impact of the Transalaska pipeline, and the tankers coming down Is in no question going to add to our Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/09/0n: CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 responsibility and the capability to assure that we cut down poten- tial pollution to the bare minimum. One can never say that there'll never be a collision. I forbid that we have one as we had in the Golden Gate here in 1972, but I think we are gearing up to this. It's equally important to our law enforcement mission, but to an- swer your question- directly, sir, it will increase the load. Senator TENNEY. I think you've answered this question in another way, but is it fair to summarize your testimony by saying that you feel that you arc able in the Coast Guard presentlyto satisfactorily contain any foreign fishing vessels incursion into the 12-mile limit along the coast, along the Pacific Coast of the -United States, and that you are able to identify those ships that come into our waters with particularity and with success and that you do not feel that there really is at the moment a? serious problem of foreign fishing vessels moving within the 12-mile limit and fishing within that 12-mile limit? Admiral WHALEN. Senator, I'll answer that in the affirmative. Senator TUNNEY. Thank you very much. Admiral WHALEN. Thank you very much, sir. Senator TUNNEY. Good luck in your retirement. I hope you're going to stay in the San Francisco area. Admiral WriALEN. Thank you, sir. Senator TUNNEY. Our next witness is Mr. Dennis Grotting, Fish- ermen's Marketin.g Association, Eureka, Calif. - Mr. Grotting? STATEMENT OF DENNIS GROTTING, FISHERMEN'S MARKETING ASSOCIATION, EUREKA, CALIF. Mr. GROTTING. Senator, my name is Dennis Grotting.. I am Secre- tary Manager of the Fishermen's Marketing Association. A rough draft of my testimony was submitted rather late yesterday afternoon. Senator TUNNEY. I. have a copy of it. Mr. GROTTING. As I testify, I will add to, alter, and in some cases delete from it. This marketing association represents over 300 .fishermen who fish on and operate some 85 trawlers based from Sausalito, Calif., up to Winchester Bay, Oreg., which is about 20 miles north of Coos Bay. In their fishing efforts, these boats fish as far south as Monterey and .as far north as Newport, Oreg. I have with me today several members of the Marketing Associ- ation. To my left here is Mr. Basil Warnock. He is from Coos Bay, Oreg., and he has been fishing on trawlers out of the Coos Bay area ever since the Soviets first arrived here in 1965 and 1966. If there are any questions that I can't field, I'm going to rely on Mr. War- nock's personal experience during the months of his survey. of the fleet. Also with me in the audience is Mr. Richard Evernow, the presi- dent of our marketing Association. He is from Crescent City, Calif., and he's the owner-operator of the fishing vessel, Jeanne Amin. And from the southern end of our marketing area in Sausalito, we have 1\'r. Leonard Dorio in the audience with us. He is the skipper of the trawler, Q. T. Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 :411A-RDP751300380R000500410005-1 Now, as I testify today, if you have any questions that you would like to ask during my testimony, I Would certainly .be willing to respond during the testimony, rather than waiting till the end, because there's going to be a lot of areas covered here, so I'll just leave it up to your discretion, sir. Senator TUNNEY. Fine, go ahead. 'Please start. Mr. GROTTING. In my written test imony, I mention that the target specie of the Soviets was Pacific hake, a fish that was net being harvested by U.S. fishermen. I should point out that hake has not been' harvested by west coast trawlers because there have been ample, quantities of fish prior to the time of the Soviets arriving and hake was, in fact, a so-called inferior specie and there was not a market for it. However, because of the depletion of stocks of other species, professors are testing the marketplace for the sale of hake: and, at the present time, we have two Oregon processors that are gearing up for hake processing. Mr. Lawrence Lazio, who will be testifying following my testimony could probably expand On this situation and answer any questions you have regarding the market for hake and SO dn. T provide some statistics during the testimony where it states that the total groundfish caught from the California, Oregon, Washing- ton, and British Columbia area totaled 1,691,900 metric tons for he years 1967 to 1972. This is computed out in pounds and it comes to 3.7 billion pounds of fish, which is an awful lot of groundfish. It's int eresting to note that the tote I percentage catch of the United States and Canada only caught. 28 percent of that quantity. The balance was cttilight by the Soviets and the Japanese, the lion's share, of course, going to the Soviet fleet. In my written testimony, it mentioned the fact that many State Department officials, National Marine; Fishery scientists, State fish and game representatives, and TI.S. commercial fishermen question the validity of the Soviet and Japanese catch statistics, since these statistics come solely from these governments. To clarify this, I might add that one Of the scientists would probably say, "that there is reason to doubt the accuracy and position of Soviet catch statis- tics." At the other end of the spectrum, a fisherman would say, "The statistics we get from the Soviets are what they want to give us, period, and nothing more. They portray what the Soviets and the Japanese want us to believe they do." All we can really say with certainty is that the figures they give us are what they admit to catching. Next, my written testimony deals with the factor of the incidental catch of the Soviets. The combined Soviet and Japanese catch of all the fish caught, 3.7 billion pounds, 761/2 percent of this was hake. The remainder was primarily rockfish and flatfish, species that are very important to our west coast trawl fishery. Now, the Soviet catch, 15 percent of their catch was caught in- cidental to their fishing for hake. Once again, these statistics are Soviet statistics. We have to de- pend on them., but we don't have access to them. Now, it is this incidental catch that wiped out the Oregon com- mercial fishery for Pacific Ocean perch. It's also this incidental catch Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/0900 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 that has depleted stocks of rockfish in California, Oregon, and Washington. I'd like to add to my testimony by saying this, I should point out that during the first years of the Soviet fishery for hake, which was 1965, and very heavily in full force in 1966, they also fished for Pacific Ocean perch as a target specie. This also applied to rockfish to some extent. The passage of the 9?mile contiguous fishing zone in late 1966 and subsequently bilateral agreements alleviated this problem to some extent. However, by that time, the stocks had been decimated. The continued incidental catch by the Soviets is holding the stocks of the Pacific Ocean perch and rockfish down to levels, particularly with Pacific Ocean perch, where it's just not economi- cally feasible to fish them. Statistics in the Oregon area show that the catch of Pacific Ocean perch in a. selected area dropped from 14 million pounds to 1 million pounds. Now, one of the things that we have to look to is this. The Soviet catch of hake so dominates their fishery that it masks the catch of other species. When the catch of hake is removed from the Soviet statistics, the impact of their incidental catch is revealing. The National Marine Fishery Service in Seattle, studied catch data from various sources, did some. estimating, and so on, and came up with the following conclusions. The Soviet incidental catch, as I said, was combined with the catch of Japan for the Oregon and Washington area. They were then compared to the catches of U.S. fishermen in the same area for the years 1970 to 1972. The 3-year average distribution of catch was as follows, and the graph on the top of page 3 shows that. Of all the rockfish caught in the Oregon-Washington area, the United States caught 39 percent of them; foreign fleets caught 61 percent. Sablefish, it was even more drastic, with the United States catching 9 percent, foreign fleets, catching 91 percent. Flatfishes, the United States caught 60 percent, the foreigners, 40 percent. Other species, the United States, 41 percent, foreigners, 59 percent. When those figures are proportioned to the total amount caught, the total U.S. catch of these species was 47 percent and the incidental catch of the Soviets and the direct catches of the Japanese of these species was 53 percent of the catch. The point is this: When the combined catch of the Soviets and Japanese of Pacific Hake is compared to the catch of U.S. trawlers, the foreign catch still exceeds that of American fishermen. Now, we have bilateral agreements with the Soviet Union that have been in existence since, I believe, approximately 1967, which came about after the 9-mile contiguous fishery zone law came into effect in 1966. I've been serving in my capacity as secretary-manager of this marketing sales distribution for 21/2 years and have been familiar with the fishery in pravious years because my family was involved in it. Now, I participated in the last bilateral negotiation of the agreement between the United States and the Soviet Union in Feb- ruary of 1973 in Moscow. Now, one of the provisions of the bilateral agreement, and this has been in existence for some time, refers to. fisheries. Now I will quote from the agreement between the Govern- ment of the United States of America and the Government of the U.S.S.R.. on certain fisheries problems in the northeast part of the Pacific Ocean off the coast of the United States of America. Para- graph 6 of that document, which is dated February of 1973, refers to nets, and it says, and I quote: The two governments will take effective measures to prevent the use by other nationals and vessels of liners of such mesh size as to retain immature Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : R-RDP751300380R000500410005-1 fish, in trawling for bottom fish, and will also take all measures necessary to insure the use in fishing for hake of bottom trawls with a mesh size in any part of the parts no less than 60 to 70 milimeters or 2.4 to 2.8 inches, stretched mesh, including one knot (two bars). It is agreed that there will be no marked change in the manner in which bottom trawlers are rigged and operaied in 1973 and 1974. What that says in essence is that the Soviets are to keep their nets at a certain mesh size so immature fish will be allowed to escape.. Now, Soviet nets or portions of these Soviet nets are found every year by American fishermen and just last week on the 11th of .Apr1 a port ion of a Soviet net was retrieved from the ocean by Captain Boy NITilscn of the trawler, Dare II, some 25 miles west of Winchester, Oreg. I brought a sample of that not, and I'd like to show :it to you to illustrate the point I'm trying to make. The upper portion of the net known as the intermediate was this size, 212 inches. It complies with the agreement. I would also like to show yon the size measurements of the American nets from the same portion of the net. This is the size of the mesh in the American nets in the same portion, called the intermediate, approximately 41/2 to 5 inches. This is 21/2 inches. When we get down to the money end of the net where the fish come together, the situation gets a little bit different. I might add that the mesh size in the upper part of the net doesn't necessarily have that much importance, as far as taking the fish, because the net just serves to guide the fish in. They continue in the flow of the water and eventually when they get down to the very end called the cod end, that's where they stay and that's where they have to get out. Now, the T.T.S. net, the cod end is made up of the same size mesh, approximately 41/, inch mesh. It's a ;little bit larger in California, smaller in Oregon. This is 41/2 to 4ib mesh, and the entire cod end, the entire part of the net, is single me4i. At the very bottom, it may be double. but it's?knot from knot, an immature fish can escape. Now, lea me show you the cod end ;of the Soviet net that was re- trieved. it's a little bit dusty from the sediment from the bottom of the ocean. Now, the way the net is laid here, the cod end would be going this way and the intermediate and the upper part would be, this way. Now, it goes this way, Basil. This piece of heavy cable, I didn't measure it, but there is three, strands of cable. They look to be approx- imately I inch, go to reinforce the net as it runs lengthwise. The top half of the cod end consists of 2 layers of 4-inch double mesh net, and a 21/, inch line the same size as the intermediate. The bottom half of the cod end, the part that pulls along the bottom, consists inside of another -?,1,-'t! inch layer and 1, 2?Where is that 4th one? There's sup- posed to be 4 here. The liner, 1, 2, 3 layers of 4-inch double mesh. Now, when these are laid one on top of another and the fish congregate in the bag. I'd like anyone to show Me how any fish?I don't care flow small it, is?gets out. The smallest size mesh is 21/2 inches, but the effect is the mesh size with the overlay is virtually zero. When this would be, stretched tight, you can hardly slip a pencil through it, so while the Soviets are following the letter of the agreement, they certainly are not following the spirit of it because there aren't many fish larger than 1 or 2 inches that could get out of this most effective mesh, most effective net. Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/09/fy : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Senator TUNNEY. What do they make, fishmeal out of what. they catch? MT. GROWING. I really don't know. I assume they process most everything. I heard there's very little that goes back overboard. Now, because we can not board and foreign fishing vessels beyond our 12-mile limit, we, as Admiral Whalen specified, the. ob- servations must come from the Coast Guard boats. Now, I listened to Admiral Whalen's testimony and I would have to concur, certainly on the coast of California, Oregon' and Washington' for the last several years, we have not had the blatant violations that occurred in the earlier years of our 12-mile fishing limit. The Coast Guard is doing a good job of paroling of the 12-mile zone. That's not to say that there may not be incursions occasionally. in fact, the Soviets are patroling their own vessels to avoid international incidents and so on, The problem really lies in what the Soviets are doing beyond 1,2 miles. We have a bilateral agreement with the Soviet Union that specifies that they will not conduct a specialized fishery for rockfish or sole. We have no way of verifying that they're living up to this because we can not board their vessels in international waters beyond 12 miles. In your questioning of Admiral Whalen, you quizzed him on the cost of having a totally exclusive 200-mile fishing zone,. Even if we have a totally exclusive 200-mile fishing zone, it's beyond reason that we could, because of the protein shortage in the world today, exclude all foreign nations from this zone. The point is this: that these vessels are operating completely unrestricted outside of 12 miles. We have no way of enforcing the mutual gentlemen's agreements that we have in the bilaterals. If we did happen to catch a Soviet ship catching rockfish beyond 12 miles, we would have to refer to the Soviet Union for action then. ? When I envision with the passage of the 200-mile zone is the ability?is the licensing of these foreign fleets and the establishment of good, sound conservation and management regulations on these vessels, in the boarding of these vessels by Coast Guard or U.S. officials, and the inspections of their holds the inspection of their nets, to verify whether or not- they are foilowing the management rules. That is the main crux of the problem with the whole thing, Senator, is that we just don't know what they're doing out here. We, have many fishermen that will testify that they're catching salmon, so I certainly don't want to go into that area. The point is that officially we just have, no way of finding-out because there's just no way to get on board these vessels. Passage of a 200-mile fishery zone would provide us with the ability to call the shots inside of 200 miles, just like we can call the shots inside. of 12 miles now. I think that's extremely important. The Coast Guard also has the responsibility of enforcing these bilateral agreements to the best of their ability, as I understand it. Let's take the present situation now. My notes say there are 26 boats off of San Francisco, but I've talked to an official 2 days ago so it's out of date, I guess. It's 32 now. But the Coast Guard has been out virtually all of the time observing. I spoke with an observer that was on one of the Coast Guard boats here several days ago and he reported 3G-709-74-pt. 3- 11 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 616 that during his 10 days at sea, that he had observed 5 or 6 hauls of fish. And in these 5 or 6 hauls of fish, he had noted catches of hake and in only one instance had he noted rockfish, red rockfish floating from the net. They were able to get within 75 to 200 yards of these, vessels with binoculars and observe. One of the problems, he said, was it's very difficult to see what they have in their nets because the end of the net was "like a sock." And there you go. How are you going to see anything inside of that? The other thing that I would like to point out is the fishing gear of the Soviets is down in the bottom. If they are catching any type of fish that it is prohibited to the bilateral agreement, they simply have to leave their net on the bottom until the plane that's flying over or the Coast Guard boat that is following them gets tired of hovering' around and standing by and goes off to check someone else. Then they will haul the net on board. This is indicative of the situation when this observer said that he had observed five or six hauls. If you have, 25 boats making only four trawls ft day, and they make many more, oftentimes make many more than that, Senator, because, they operate 24 hours a day, but, just 25 boats making four hauls on a day like today, that's 100 hauls or drms a day. Multiply that times 10 days. That's 1,000 drags are made in a 10-day period. Yet, this ob- server observed only five or six, which is less than 1 percent of the total nets hauled back. That's not a very good percentage. If the, Coast Guard had the ability to go np in a helicopter and drop a man on hoard any vessel that he wanted to, inspect the catch and so on, go down in the holds and see what they have, there, a. lot of questions- would be answered. A. lot of questions would be a.nswered, Senator. We'd find out whether they're catching salmon. We'd find out whether they're catching flatfish, perch, rock cod, and so on. The size, of the Soviet, fishing vessels are in the 250- to 300-foot- range. They dwatf our IT.S. trawlers, which average 65 to 75 feet in length. Now, the potential of the Soviet fleet for wiping out of small coastal stocks of sole and cod is ominous. It is my own personal belief' that at least most, of the Soviet fleet is targeting?is presently tar- geting their fishery to hake and the Soviet annual catch of hake has averaged 150.000 metric tons. That's 830 million pounds. The total U.S. catch of all species of ground fish has averaged. only 50,000.: metric tons, which is 25 percent of the Soviet catch of hake. If the - Soviets, or any other nation for filet matter, chooses, they can target our small domicile stock, our small rockfish stocks, and wipe them out in a single season of fishing just like they did the Pacific Ocean perch in the seasons of 1966 and 1067. Now, in addition to having the, ability to harvest hundreds and thousands of tons of fish per season., those foreign fleets are extremely mobile. Only last slimmer, the Poles and East Germans each had exploratory fishing vessels operating off the west coast. The Poles have indicated that they will have an additional five vessels here in 1974. These vessels are here because the once fruitful fishing grounds off our New England States have been greatly depleted as a result of fishing pressure from more than 15 foreign nations, and it's probably 90 foreign nations. The stocks of fish are harvested to low levels. These fleets move on looking for new fishing grounds. Going halfway- around the world is not uncommon. Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 617 Now, Senator, hearings have been held in Alaska. They've been held in New England, and I would like to stress to you the importance of you and your staff going over this testimony because there are real problems in those areas, Just like there are real problems here on this coast of California, Oregon, and Washington, but our problems are small compared to the problems the New England fishermen are facing and the Alaskan fishermen. I could quote you some figures about the amount of bottomfish that's been taken out of Alaska that would boggle the mind, 5 and 6 billion pounds of fish every year, harvested by the foreign fleets, virtually unrestricted, in the Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska area. With the ability of these fleets, they have the ability of coming down off our shores and conducting their fishery and under present law we would- stand helpless while these vessels wiped out our stocks of fish. It is impossible to manage our fisheries resources when huge fleets of unregulated fishing vessels are scooping up our fish only 12 miles from our coastline. These fleets must be regulated so as to conserve and manage this valuable protein source, so we may be assured a perpetual supply of protein from the sea. In these times of food shortages, it is unthinkable to allow uncontrolled fishing at will. if allowed to continue, it will further deplete stocks of fish to the point where they will never recover. The rest of my testimony is virtually unchanged. I might add a couple of things to it. My association is active in the National Fed- eration of Fishermen and as president of this Organization, been quite involved in it, also involved in it prior to being elected president a couple of months ago. The NFF thought up the -species approach, Senator, and sold it to the State Department. The three species approach was developed by industry because it solved the problem of the?all American fisherman by identifying the three basic types of fish, coastal, anadramous, and pelagic. The problem was that the NFF three species concept called for ownership- of the coastal species and the State Department's policy provides the United States with a preferential right, which would mean if we were. not utilizing the specie, we would virtually have nothing to say about that specie. That's unacceptable. As far as the U.S. fishing industry is concerned, it's just not sound. We need a unilateral?a 200?mile fishery zone that's exclusive, where- we, have complete control of the management resources, complete control of the resources that swim within that 200-mile zone. Now, I'm sure you heard a lot of talk yesterday in San Diego, as you mentioned earlier, regarding the Law of the Sea Conference. People would lead you to believe that that's going to be the solu- tion. The Law of the Sea Conference has moved along very slowly. The U.S. position has not beenwell received. Now, the -U.S. position is logical, but the majority of the nations of the world don't under- stand and believe the 200-mile zone is the logical solution. As far as they're concerned, and in fact, I believe the United States and the three species concept will accept a zonal approach -for the man- agement of coastal species. The handwriting is on the wall that these coastal species, whether the Law of the Sea Conference does come to a successful conclusion remains to be seen. The only possible thing that arises seems to be that one way or another a zonal approach will be the rule for the management of the world's fishery resources. Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 618 Now, our greatest fear is that if and when the United States moves and characteristically they follow slowly when it comes to fisheries matters because fisheries are about as low down the totem pole as you can get, and with the world food shortage, I think that's pretty much a head in the sand atttiude, but our greatest fewr is that when the United States finally moves to support zonal approach that they will call for and possibly settle for a nonexclusive zone rather than an exclusive zone. Now, a nonexclusive zone would give the United States very little power to deal with foreign nations fishing off our coasts when they say they are only taking species not fully harvested by U.S. fishermen. Ne.edless to say, my organization, both Fishermen's Marketing Organization, all the trawlers on the west coast, as well as the National Federation of Fishermen, is in complete support of Sen- ator Magnuson's S. 1988, and we stand by to answer any questions you might have or provide any information. We have a sad story to tell. We're very much fearful of the capability of these foreign fleets and feel that something has to be done, Senator, in order to preserve. these stocks of fish. Thank you. Senator TUNNEY. Thank you very much. I appreciate your very well informed statement, Mr. Grotting. I have a few questions for you. ' - In our hearing in San Diego yesterday, it was alleged by several of the witnesses that originally the species approach had been a position that was arrived at through consultation on the part of all the various fishermen in the United States, the coastal fishermen as well as the tuna fishermen and others, and that recently the coastal fishermen have broken away from the agreement, and that you're now quoting the 900-mile limitation and that this does not reflect what had initially been the understanding of the entire fishing industry. Would you care to comment with respect to those allega- tions that were made that this happened and the way that it happened? Mr. GllOTTING. In June of 1971, all sections of the, industry met here in San Francisco. I was not. a party to that. It happened 6 or 7 months before I took my present position, but they agreed upon a three specie concept, which included ownership of coastal :ma- dramous species. The State Department, under pressure from th.e industry, or selling from the industry, however you'd like to state it. adopted, the three specie concept; but, as I testified earlier, they pulled out the ownership aspect. New, a lot of water has gone under the bridge, in the last 3 years. The world situation has changed a .great deal. The Law of the. Seas has not been well received. Other nations of the world. lust aren't going to buy it. People in the State Department will say that, not officially, but they will say it. As I said, the world situation has changed. The fact that the United -.States position does not press for ownership exists a. preferential position caused the National Federation of Fishermen to analyze their position again. It was opposed- by the tuna segments of the indtustry. but with any type of situation. like. this, you can see the handwriting on the wall. Where a concept has no opportunity to Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/09/9r9: CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 float, where our coastal species are beim).'' directly decimated at the rate they are the NFF just felt they had to make this change,. which they dill. The other side of the coin is that the American tuna -industry,. particularly the tuna seiners wh.o are operating off the coasts of the other countries, have. had the protection of the U.S. Government bypaying fines, et cetera. This is all well and good, but that's the main hangup why we're. not protecting our ..own coastal stocks of fish. A figure was stated, about 85 percent of the value of the catch of California, was tunafish. The fact of the matter is that the bulk of that tuna landed is yellowfin tuna, virtually a fraction. of a per- centage of that is caught in California waters. The handwriting is on the wall worldwide for extended jurisdiction and - I think we need to protect our own Stocks of fish and develop our own fisheries for these stocks of fish within our own 200-mile zone,. The Japanese and Soviets harvest .over 5 billion pounds in the Bering Sea, and the United States, not having a fishery for any of these fish, it just kind of boggles the mind that we aren't developing this industry. I might add the. industry has started to develop up there. I don't know if I've answered your question, Senator. I think times change. Senator TUNNEY. I think you have. ? Mr. GROWING. I think times chancre and I think people have their head in the sand if they think that the 200-mile extended juris- diction is going to go away. I'm just afraid the United States is going to hold off too long in attempting to protect the long-distance tuna and shrimp industry, that were 's going to. have some real problems. The United States, for example, it's my understanding, is negotiating an agreement with Brazil regarding shrimp, which actually?which in effect recognizes the right of Brazil to manage their fishery out to the range of 200 miles, and there's a licensing agreement that we had with our American shrimp boats; so, al- though I'm sure the State Department wouldn't admit it, our closest analysis of the facts would show that in the case of Brazil,. they have recognized extended jurisdiction on the part of Brazil, and the American shrimp fishermen are going along with it. Senator TUNNEY. It's my understanding that the treaty's already been negotiated and the United States has paid the Brazilian Gov- ernment to enforce the treaty. Mr. GROTTING. But it does provide for a specified number of shrimp boats fishing during the. season in certain areas in waters beyond 12 miles. Senator TUNNEY. One of the things which was pointed out yester- day in terms of catch quoted to me by a Mr. Charles Carry. who I know you are familiar with, who represented the Tuna Research Foundation, said that in terms of catch percentage and value, Si percent of northern California fishermen account for 15 percent of the catch, 17 percent of the dollar value; southern California fisher- men are credited with 85 percent of the reported catch, 83 percent of the dollar value. And he went on to point out that the vast portion of the southern California fishermen were fishing for tuna. I think this is a major industry and it is the major fishing industry Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP751300380R000500410005-1 620 ,cOn the State, and he was using these figures to justify his position, his organization position, that we ought to be most concerned about .protecting the tuna fishing industry, as contrasted with the coastal fishing industry and anadroraous fish. What is your reaction to that 'testimony, sir? Mr. GI:trimNa. Well, part of my answer to the previous questions follows along that same line with the relationship of the yellowfin tuna being caught beyond California waters. My main reaction to that would be that while the dollar value in the tuna landings may be greater than that caught in northern California, I believe you're going to hear testimony now from some albacore fishermen, who derive part of their income from sources other than albacore, and you'll find that albacore landings in California, Oregon., and Wash- ington are a substantial portion of the tuna landings. They certainly exceed the landings of other tuna caught in the U.S. waters. The other thing I would add is that I think you have to look at the whole picture. Include in California, Oregon, Washington, and Alaska, include the catches of shrimp, king crab, and snow crab, Dungeness crab, salmon, all up and down the coast, and then add to that the fish that the foreigners are catching, the hake stocks, 330 million pounds a year. Add to that the pollack stocks that the Japanese and Russians are catching and the yellowfm flounder that's being caught in the Alaskan area. If you added all of these total catches of fish within the waters of the?extended waters of the United States up to 200 miles, it would far exceed the total tuna landings, including the imports from foreign nations. The hand- writing is on the wall. I think the nations of the world are going to manage their resources within 200 miles, and I think we'd better wake up to the fact and start doing this. Perhaps the best?and I hesitate to say this, and I might say it happened just?I said at one time to one of the tuna people and I almost got punched in the mouth, I suggested with all of the politick that's being caught by the Japanese in th.e Bering Sea, that perhaps the best thing to do would be to take their tuna boats and convert them to sand trawlers and go haul this pollack, although I'll admit the climate is not as good as it is around the Equator area. Senator TUNNE Y. Another point was brought up that by extend- ing the fishing limit out to 200 miles; we would be sabotaging our negotiators' efforts at the Law of the Sea conference in '-Caracas, Venezuela. We would be changing our position from that which the negotiators are attempting to advance at the conference. What's your reaction to that? Mr. GROTTING. On the contrary. I think that the threat of or the passage of Senator lVfagmison's bill provides a great lever for them to get off their duff and get something accomplished that will protect the coastal and anadromous species of this country. Senator TuNNFy. I think that their point was that we were ad- vancing as our position in Caracas, Venezuela the view of the three species approach and not having a fishery limit up to 200 miles, as I understood it, and this unilateral action on the part of the United States was a demonstration that we did not have any confidence Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/09/Ei: CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 at all that the Law of the Sea Conference is going to amount to anything. Therefore we're taking unilateral action in order to protect what we think needs to be protected off our own coast, that this would have a very load impact, and that other countries would immediately follow suit. Mexico, the Central American, and the other South American countries, in regard to these claims out to 200 miles, that they'd just follow suit and the position would there- fore be torpedoed for whatever we've got going in substantive " discussions. -What is your reaction? Mr. GROTTING. Well, that's an awful long question. Senator TUNNEY. I know it's a long question, but answer it piece by piece or in totality as you see fit, but it's something which troubles me, and I wish you could just address various elements of the ques- tion as best you can. The question was not that articulate. I apologize. Mr. GROTTING. Certainly. I attended last year for 2 or 3 days a portion of the Law of the Sea Conference that was being conducted in New York, and I was impressed with the almost total futility of the whole exercise. Fishery is only a portion of the total regime that they're discussing. When you apply this to what it means to the U.S. fisherman who is out dodging these foreign fleets, whether they be Russians or Japanese on the west coast or Poles, Rumanians, Bulgarians, and so on on the east coast, the promise of something being worked out at the Law of the Sea Conference is not very helpful to them, Senator. They see the stocks of fish that they depend upon being wiped out, their future existence being virtually threatened to be taken away. The question undermining the deliberations at the Law of the Sea Conference are this. I think that the U.S. State Department has already accepted the fact that there is going to be extended juris- diction for the protection of coastal species. What they're hoping for is that somehow they're going to be able to sell the idea on the difference of anadromous species and salmon and tunas, and I wish them well. I think that these species need to be treated differently. But by the same token, the coastal species of our Nation and other nations of the world are not being conserved and managed properly. Tn fact, they're not being?for the most part, they're not being conserved and managed at all. We occasionally have?I'm not sure of the bill number, but there is a bill before the Congress now, which calls for a Federal fisheries regime in this country, which in effect has to exempt any foreign fishing vessels because they have no jurisdiction over them. Well, I for one and no fisherman in this country in his right mind is going ?to accept any kind of overall Federal regime for the conservation of fisheries that only applies to them and not to foreign nations that are harvestino: the same stocks. We absolutely have to have management control, licensing, and regulation of all vessels that fish in a certain area, and the immediacy of the problem?this has been building up for years. The Law of the Sea Conference convened in 1958, came to -some conclusions. The problem was that not all the countries of the e\vorld ratified it, including the Russians and the Japanese. I don't ?Know the particulars of that particular conference, but I know that Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 622 this Law of the Sea Conference is predicated in the same manner, that if an agreement is reached 2 or 3 years down the line, it will have to be ratified. I know there's talk of whatever it is being agreed to being implemented immediatel y, but, ,5enator, the fish that are swimming around in our oceans being caught up by these foreign fleets don't understand the Law of the Sea Conference. They don't understand the, 12-mile limit. They don't understand the State licens- ing of California., Oregon. or Washington and Canada; so, in view of all the comments that have been made regarding proponents of the Law of the Sea Conference, the United States position is one that has not been accepted by the other countries of the world. It's too complicated for 'hem to understand. The simplistic approach is the 200-mile zone or something near it, and I know that the 'United States is going to?has already accepted in their mind that they are going to hay, some type of zoning of coastal species. The point is we need, it now before more and more stocks of fish are wiped cut. Senator TIC Well, Fin informed that the State Department estimates the Law of the Sea Conference would take 1 or 2 years to develop regulations controlling the harvesting of fish. The United States proposed that regulations pertaining to fishery go into effect immediately aftec the Conference adopts them by final ratification by the nations invoved, and it's been suggested to me that we wait at least 11/2 years before unilaterally, establishing a 200-mile fishing zone to see what progress can be made at the Law of the Sea Con- ference. Do you think foreign fleets pose such a serious threat to our coastal fish that we eoindn't wait a year-and-a-half to see if the Law of the Sea Conference regulations take care of the foreign fishing prob- lems before unilaterally extending our fishing zone to 200 miles? Mr. GROTTI NG. The problem with that is that the original date for the Law of the Sea Conference convened, I believe, in 1972. Two years later, it's ready to convene now. We've been waiting and wait- ing and waiting, and in my testimony earlier, I mentioned the fact that these foreign fleets have the capability of virtually catching any- thing they want to catch. I think these nations realize that there's going to be some type of controls over them. Some of these nations I'm very r'earful of because of the competition with all of the coun- tries of the world will in effect be coming in to catch all they can before they're regulated. Yes. I think we need unilateral action now because it's going to come and our valuable resources that we have on the Continental Shelf of the United States, whether it be New England, California, Washington, Orgeon or Alaska, are in dire need of proper manage- ment and conservation practices. I think if we wait for a year-antra- half or 2 years that we may find that the Law, of the Sea Conference has not concluded at all. The only thing I would concede on that, Senator, is this. and I realize that the Law of the Sea Conference. is imminenf, coming up in June, I'm not that hopeful of Senator Magnuson's S. 1988 be- coming law prior to that. I would say prior to this that we should take a good look at the Law of the Sea Conference and if there is no progress or it looks like it isn't going to come to a conclusion Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/09M : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 within a year, I think that at the conclusion of the Law of the Sea Conference, we should press for unilateral passage of this bill. Senator TUNNEY. Could you just address yourself to the problem, to the international problem, arising as a result of our having a fishery zone extended out 200 miles? These are suggestions that it could create serious problems for us. A good example is Cuba, as our zone would go out beyond the island of Cuba which is 95 miles off the coast of Florida, and that this would create serious international problems. The same thing would be true of the Bahamas and other of those islands that are either independent or part of the jurisdic- tion of other nations. What is your feeling for that? Have you come to grips with that? Have you thought about it at air? Mr. GROTTING. 'Well, certainly, the provisions of any 200-mile extension Senator TUNNEY. And before you answer that, does it follow that the same type of problems apply here on the west coast? Mr. GOTTING. The way I look at that, Senator, is that any ex- tension of jurisdiction will recognize the territorial boundaries. For example, where Cuba is concerned, if it's 95 miles off our coast, ob- viously, our 200-mile zone isn't going to include Cuba. They would have a right to a 200-mile zone too. What happens there is the dif- ference between the two countries is split, so the zone would be ap- proximately what, 45 miles, in that area. The same thing would apply Senator TUNNEY. But this legislation doesn't provide for that, does it? Mr. GROTTING. I'm sure it does. I haven't read over it recently in the last? Senator TUNNEY. SO it would provide for it? Mr. GROWING. Oh, certainly. It would have to provide for it. It would have to recognize the Canadian coastline and so on. You've got the Aleutian Islands running across how many miles to the Soviet Union. We have to split the difference between the western- most Aleutian Island and the coast of the Soviet Union. That would just make sense. Senator TUNNEY. And one final question. I'm sorry that I've taken so much time in questioning you, but there were a number of these rather basic questions that I wanted to ask a representative of the coastal fishing industry, and I felt that you would be the best person to ask these questions, although I'm not saying that I wouldn't ask some of them of other witnesses. I would want to address them, even if I don't ask them those questions, I'm certainly happy to hear their opinions also, but I felt that I should cover these basic questions with you. I'd like to know what the economic picture of the coastal fishing industry is in California. For example, what is the annual gross income realized by the California coastal fishing industry? What's the capital investment of the industry, and how many jobs are pro- vided for Californians by that industry? If you don't have these figures, and I recognize that to be specific would require some re- search, I'd like to have them for the record. Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/09/07: CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 624 Mr. GROTTING. All right, I'd be happy to submit those. Senator 'PUNNET. Gross income realized by the California coastal fishing industry. Mr. ciForTmo. Now, by coastal fishing industry are you referring simply to trawlers or to the crab fishermen and salmon fishermen? Senator TUNN;EY. I think everyone, and what is the capital in- vestment in that industry, the number of jobs that would be brought about; and, if you can, and this is much mon; difficult, what the economic dimensions of the industry are, such as boat servicing, piers, warehousillg, which back up the coastal fishing industry. And think that yon should be mindful of the fact that it has been testified to by, again Mr. Carry, in San Diego that in using statistics from corn men6al landings of fish and shellfish by U.S. fishing craft by distance off U.S. shores that in the 10-year span from 1961 to 1970, the annual average 'U.S. fish catch averaged 4,408,400,000 pounds and that in 1973, the last years for which we had statistics, the total catch was?I'll just quote from him--of fish and shellfish inside our 12-mile zone was 3,776,843,000 pounds out of an overall total of 11.5. landings of 4,996,000,000 pounds. He said that it would seem that no great depreciation has been suffered over this period of time, and I would like to know what your attitudes are with re- spect to that, the fact that the catch appears to be almost as good in 1973 as it was in 1961 insofar as total poundage of catch. Mr. GraynriNo. I could comment as that relates to our particular fishery, Senator, and, of course, will respond and return some of these items for the record at a later date. I would appreciate having a copy of that testimony of Mr. Carry so I can study it, if it's possible. Senator 'PUNNET'. Certainly. Yes, we will supply you with a copy of the statement and we'd like to have the answers to these questions by the first week of May. Let's say May 10. Mr. GROTTING. All right. One comment I would have about produc- tion increasing, in the early 1960's our draggers fished hardly any deeper than--Well, let's go back even before that. Let's go back to the 50's. Very seldom did they fish beyond 100 or 150 fathoms of water. By the 1960's they were fishing out to 300 and 350 fathoms of water. Today, our vesels are fishing as deep as 750 or 800 fathoms, fishing in the 550 to 600-fathom area being very common. The boats that have fished inside and continue to fish inside, meaning inside of 150 fathoms, their production goes down. Our gear has become more efficient. We are fishing not only deeper areas, but in areas where we never fished before, around rockpiles and reefs. The nets are becoming more durable. In other words, the stocks have gone down. We've had to hunt further and further for them. It's going to be a point?I don't know how much deeper we can go. I don't know if there's any more fish out there. Eight hundred fathoms is a lot of'. water. That's nearly a mile down. So while our production statistics have stayed the same or have even increased, the number of boats have increased; the gear has become more ef- ficient; our vessels operate 24- hours a day when they're out in the sea, 3 and 4 days in a row. These are factors that give problems when you start comparing statistics.. Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B00380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/09K : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Senator TUNNEY. Yes, I understand that, and those are good ob- servations that you've made. Well, I want to thank you very much for your testimony today. I, as a member of the Commerce Committee, am going to have to, make my own mind up as to what to do with respect to this 200-mile: limit bill. I have kept an open mind purposefully and rigorously for. the purpose of these hearings in California and in Washington, and am going to attempt to decide the issue on the basis of what is best, not only for the fishing industry, but for the people of my State, 22 million of them, and the people of the country, and that's the criteria that I'm using, what's best for the entire country, and I have an open mind on it. I must say that I find the issues similar to the problem of trying to unravel the Gordian Knot. They're so difficulit to understand and to determine what is best. On one hand, you listen to the testimony of those involved in the tuna industry and that position makes great sense, and then you listen to your testimony and the testimony that we're going to be hearing yet today, and that makes a great deal of sense, so it's one that's difficuilt to resolve. I'll ask you as you are preparing the details, the written answers to the questions that I've asked you, to bear in mind that it would be helpful if you would make your very best points, at least insofar as this Senator is concerned, because I really do have a completely open mind on it, and I'm studying the issue very intensely. Mr. GROTTING. OK. Thank you, Senator. I would hope that I could get the questions submitted to me in writing so that I could be sure that I don't miss anything. I copied them down here, but? Senator TUNNEY. Fine. All right. Mr. GROTTING. NOW, before we leave, I have Mr. Warnock with me. He has fished off the coast of southern Oregon and even in northern California for the past 8 years since the Soviets have been here, and he has a few personal observations that I think he'd like to make, if possible. Senator TUNNEY. All right. If you would make them brief, be- cause we have a number of other witnesses who are scheduled. Mr. GaorrrNo. And I will leave the net here for inspection right on the table, if that's all right. Senator TUNNEY. All right, for the remainder of the Mr. GROTTING. For the remainder of the testimony. Senator TUNNEY. Thank you. [The statement follows:] ? STATEMENT OF DENNIS GROTTING, SECRETARY-MANAGER, FISLIERNIEN4S MARKETING AsSOCIATION, INC. My name is Dennis Grotting. I am Secretary-Manager of the Fishermen's Marketing Association. This Association represents over 300 fishermen who fish own and operate 85 trawlers based from Sausalito, California to Winchester Bay, Oregon. In their fishing efforts these boats fish as far south as Monterey and as far north as Newport, Oregon. In 1965, Soviet fishing vessels arrived off the coast of California, Oregon and Washington to do exploratory fishing. They found the fishing good and in 1966 there was a large fleet operating off the west coast. Their target specie was Pacific Hake, a fish that was not being harvested by U.S. Fishermen. In the process of fishing for Hake, the Soviets landed other fish, primarily Pacific Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 626 'Ocean Perch and Rockfish. As a result they depleted these species, particularly Pacific Ocean Perch, to such low levels that the U.S. Fisheries for these species has been reduced greatly or is virtually non-existent in some areas. magr.itude of the foreign fishing effort is best expressed through sta- tistics made available from the National Marine Fisheries Service in Seattle. These statistics show that the total groundfish catch from the California, Ore- gnu, Washington, and British Columbia area totalled 1,691,900 metric tons -Dn.t.) for the years 1967 to 1972. Of this total 1,098,300 m.t. were caught by -;:the USSR, 123,900 m.t. by the Japanese, and 469,700 mt. by the U.S. and Can- ada. Percentage wise the Soviets caught 65%, the Japanese 7%, and the U.S. and Canada 28%. Although the Soviets began their fishery on the west coast in 1965 and 1966, no statistics are available from them until 1967. The Japanese began their fish- ery in 1967. Many State Department officials, NMFC scientists, state fish and game representatives, and U.S. commercial !fishermen question the validity of the USSR and Japanese catch statistics since these statistics have come solely from these governments. All we can say with certainty is that they admit to catching these amounts. Of the combined Soviet and Japanese catch of fish during this period, 715% was Hake. The remaining 286,900 mt. of groundfish was primarily rockfish, sable, and flatilish. species that are very important to our U.S. fishery. The Jap- anese catch of 123.900 IDA. was a result of a direct fishery for these species. 'rho Soviet catch of 163.000 mt., 1.5% of their total catch was caught "inciden- tal" (accord?ns,, to official Soviet sources) to their fishery for Hake. It is this "incidental catch" that wip?d out the Oregon commercial fishery for Pacific. Ocean Perch. It is this "incendental catch" that has depleted stocks of rockfish in California, Oregon, and Washington. The incidental catch statistics by the USSR and Japan for the Oregon and Washington area were compared to the catches of U.S. fishermen in the same area for the years 1970 to 1972. The three year average distribution of catch was as follows: Rockfishes Sablefish. Flatfishes Others Total [In percent' United States Foreign 39 61 9 91 60 40 41 59 47 53 The point is this. Even the incidental catch that the Soviets admit to exceeds the catch of U.S. fishermen on the stocks of fish that they depend upon for their Most U.S. fishermen feel that the Soviets are catching more than just Hake. However, we have no way of proving this because they are fishing in what are now recognized as international waters, just 12 miles off our coast. We do have a bilateral agreement with the USSR that provides that they will not conduct a specialized fishery for roekfish or for sole. We have no way of verifying that they are living up to this because we have no right to board their vessels ha international waters. We therefore must rely on observations from our patrol planes and ships and, of course, from their annual statistics. The size of the USSR flushing vessels is in the 250 to 300 foot range. They dwarf our 11.5. trawlers. The potential of the USSR fleet for wiping out oar small coastal stocks of sole and cod is ominous. It is my own personal belief that the Soviets are presently targeting their fishery to Hake. The average catch of Hake has been 150.000 m.t. The total U.S. catch of all species of groundfish has averaged 50,000 mt., only 25% of the 'Soviet catch of Hake. If the Soviets, or any other fishing nation for that matter, chooses, they can tar- get our small Dover Sole or Rockfish stocks and wipe them out in a single season of fishing. Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP751300380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 627 Under the present structure of no fiSheries management the U.S. fishermen and those charged with the responsibility of managing our stocks of fish would be absolutely helpless to prevent the further rape of our already meagre stocks of fish. It is impossible to manage our fisheries resources when huge fleets of un- regulated foreign fishing vessels are scooping up our fish only twelve miles from our coastline. These fleets must be regulated so as to conserve and manage this valuable protein source so we may be assured a perpetual supply of pro- tein from the sea. In these times of food shortages it is unthinkable to allow uncontrolled fishing that will, if allowed to continue, further deplete stocks of fish to the point that they will never recover. The Fishermen's Marketing Association is an active member of the National Federation of .Fishermen?Western Region. This section of NFF represents seventeen fishermen's organizations on the west coast ranging from San Diego to Bristol- Bay, Alaska. As President of this organization I would like to briefly speak on the subject of the Law of the Sea and to Senator Magnuson's bill. 5-1988. In June of 1971 the National Federation of Fishermen met in San Francisco and developed the "species approach." This concept was supported strongly by the fishing industry because it recognized the characteristics of the three basic types of fish?coastal, anadromous, and pelagic. The State Department accepted the three specie concept as its official position at the Law of the Sea. There was, however, a difference between the NFF three specie concept and that of the State Department. The NFS called for ownership of the coastal and anad- romous stocks while the U.S. Government position called for the coastal nation to have a preferential position over the stocks of fish it was taking or could eventually take off its own coast. This position puts the U.S. fishermen in a poor position because he would have nothing to say about the stocks of fish that he was not presently utilizing, such as Hake. The Law of the Sea Conference has moved along very slowly. Tile U.S. posi- tion has not been well received. The majority of nations favor some type of zone with the most popular being a 200 mile zone. The handwriting is on the wall for a zonal approach for management of coastal species of fish in the world today. Whether the Law of the Sea Conference does or does not come to a suc- cessful conclusion remains to be seen. The only positive thing seems to be that one way or another, a zonal approach will be the rule for the management of the world's fishery resources. - Our greatest fear is that when the U.S. moves to support such a zonal ap- proach that they will call for a non-exclusive zone rather than an exclusive zone. A non-exclusive zone would give the United States very little power to -deal with foreign nations fishing off our costs when they say they are only taking species not fully harvested by United States fishermen. Recognizing all. of the above cited problems, the National Federation of Fish- ermen, at its annual meeting in Feb. of this year, changed its position from support of the three species concept to that of support for the passage and basic concepts contained within S-1988. On behalf of the Fishermen's Marketing Association and the National Fed- eration of Fishermen I urge you to support the Passage of S-1958. STATEMENT OF BASIL WARNOCK, FISHERMAN, COOS BAY, OREG. Mr. -Wionroci.c. Senator, I'm Basil -Warnock, fisherman, dragging off the southern Oregon coast. I have a short statement to make here. I have also presented testimony to Senator Packwood's hearing in Coos Bay. The American Government has with blind consistency done nothing to extend its 12-mile fishery zone, but has chosen instead to seek mutual agreement with other countries and failed, while the very resources we must protect are dwindling to the point of no return. Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 628 As a fisherman who has seen the Russians wipe out our perch on the Oregon coast from 14 million pounds to around 1 .millions pounds in 2 years, and many other species down to a substandard yield, i which are all listed as ncidentals on their catch records, I and fellow fishermen want help. Although the United States was once the greatest fishery nation in the world, today, we are importing 70 percent of our seafoods, nearly all of which are taken from our Continental Shelf by :hips -of other countries. The Japanese and Soviet fleets forage the entire area from Alaska's Continental Shelf to Baja, California in Mexico, consuming every- thing. The Soviet RAIRT's measuring the length of a football field and weighing over 3,000 tons, fishing with gear which is illegal for us to use. Their nets allow no escapement and kill everything caught. These stern trawlers were so thick of Coos Bay last year, they even ran over each other, sinking one. As a fisherman. I ask your help in extending our fisheries to 200 miles and supportnig Senator Magnuson's bill. Thank you very much. Senator TUNNEY. Thank you very much. Th.'. WARNOCK. May I leave this? Senator TUNNEY. Yes, fine. They'll be incorporated by reference; Just give them to the reporter. Thank you. Our next witness is Lawrence Lazio, president of Lazio Fish Co.,. Eureka, Calif. STATEMENT OF LAWRENCE LAZIO, PRESIDENT, LAZIO FISH CO.,. EUREKA, CALIF. Mr. LAZIO. Senator Tunney, I welcome the opportunity to come. before you this morning, and you have my prepared remarks. Senator TUNNEY. Yes. Mr. LAZIO. I think in listening to what's been going on in prior presentations, I'd like to just get into a discussion of some of the things, the questions that you have asked. Senator TUNNEY. Your statement will be included in the record. Mr. LAZIO. Fine. The things that are bothering you in balancing the coastal fisher- men as opposed to the tuna interests in the southern part of our State. I would say that if you were a Senator from a State that only had coastal interests or if our State did not have the long-distance trawlers or tuna fisheries operation out of it, a decision on this mat- ter of extended fishery zone would be :much easier, but I realize you have this problem. I realize the Law of the Sea Conference is there. There are some things I'd like to say right now, as I see them as an operator of a processing operation, as an operator for drag boats that compete with the Itussians. Jr. fact, one of them was just off-shore the other day and had to get out of the way of the Russian trawlers. They're much faster. They cover the ground in about 81/9 knots, where our boats cover the ground at about 11/2 knots. The size of the Russian net, which may have been brought out before, but I don't think it has at this meeting, in relationship to this room, if a Rus.sian Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 629 net were as big as this room, the American net would probably be the section of that jury box over there in relationship. This is how much bigger these nets are in total size. Senator TIINNEY. On a scale of 10 or 20 to 1? Mr. LAZIO. About 10 to 1, I would guess. They had a Russian net laid out on a football field up in Oregon a couple of years ago' and it took up the entire football field. It was almost 100 yards long. Ours are about 25 yards long and nowhere near as wide; and, as you can see, the difference in materials used. But getting back to balancing the situation, I feel that the coastal fishery is in jeopardy of being totally wiped out, as was the situation abote the Oregon coast with the ocean perch stocks, that the tuna boys are not in a position of being wiped out. Yes, they have to make some agreements. They may have to pay. Our Government may have to work out some agreements with a foreign nation where they pay a fee to go and utilize some of the resources, but to control that sec- tor, what's going on off our shores has been said before. It's totally uncontrolled. I feel that our fishermen are being limited in their fishing grounds to a? 9-mile wide strip, and by 9 miles wide, I mean the trawlers in the State of California must fish beyond a 3-mile zone. They cannot fish inside that. When we go out to 12 miles, and there we have the Russian fleets or the foreign fleets, whichever they be, they're going to be increasing, as has been brought out in testimony, so our fisher- men are basically limited to a 9-mile strip. Yes, they're going out beyond this, but when these large Russian fleets are out there, or whatever the fleet might be, they have to get out of the way because they can't afford losing their gear, getting tangled up with the Rus- sitins, or the foreign fishing gear is so much heavier that our net would get wiped out. I have a boat that fishes for a company off of northern California to southern Oregon that fishes traps for black cod. When the Rus- sians show up, he has to pull his traps and get out of there. In two instances, he's been completely wiped out. He's filed claims with the National Marine Fishery Service and they Said they'd take it to the Russians and the things has bounced around now for 3 years and nothing's ever happened. There was one instance in Alaska where a claim was presented to the Russian Government and it was paid where (rear was wiped out and what was for king crab, so I would also like to get into?You asked a question of numbers, you know, how important is our fishery in relation to tuna fishery. Can you play the numbers game when a fishery is going to get wiped out; when the strong possibility exists it would be totally wiped out? I think there is this urgency factor. You also asked a question about the Law of the Sea Conference and how that balances out and -should we have an extension bill now. Can we wait? What about the three species concept? There may be some common ground where the three species concept could be plugged into an extension factor on some type of common ground basis that could be applied now, affording maybe protection of the fisheries that are being overfished today, which would not jeopardize the negotiators' position when they go to South America for their fisheries conference. There could be something there. Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 630 It hasn't been recorded, and I think this is because the government agency involved did not see it. It wasn't recorded; therefore, it isn't a fact. But T was told last week by one of my fishermen that the Rus- sians had, I think, seven boats up off the Oregon coast that were fish- ing for whales. Our country excluded the fishing of whales and San Francisco was the only port in the whole United States that fished for whales. This fishing went on for some 20-odd years. There were about 147 whales taken every year and. it's estimated that the Russian and Japanese ships are taking 20,000 wales per year in the Pacific Oman andt some. of these hare been off the Oregon coast last week. Ile reports seeing whaling vessels there and reports seeing large con- centrations of blood on the surface from the kills that were made. by them. Whim you take the concept of 200 miles, excluding these people, and taking these resources, some have said, yes, we should balance it out; let them have their rights. I wonder what would happen if the American people sent 10-15 drilling rigs to drill for oil off the coast of Russia, say 50 miles out, what would they do, and what would we do if the foreign people, sent drilli mg rigs for oil, for a natura'_ re- source, close to our shore? What type of action would we take? We all know that this is a very important resource, oil, and it would be very interesting if this thing were, to pass, what type of action would we go into? Maybe our forefathers, if they had a little more foresight in this particular area?I think they did a good job in everything else?but if the cannons of the early revolutionary time had shot 50 would we have a 50-mile jurisdiction for the resources adja- cent to our coastlines? This is the battle we're fighting now. We're trying to balance interests that exist within the country today, the coastal fishermen against the tuna and the shrimp fishermen. It's a difficult problem, but there is very definitely the chance that our fishery will.be totally wiped out. I don't think that the capital investment that's going into our seg- ment of the industry should be going into it because of the limiting effects that the foreign vessels have put upon us. We're limited in trying to think about building a boat when we know that possibly that stock is going to be wiped out. The same thing is true of the plants. Utilization of the hake in the last 2 years, economic utiliza- tion of bake is there. No one's really gone into it. in the United States yet, No. 1, because of the competition from the foreign vessels on the ground, and the economics?Hake could be used today for fisluneal because the economies are there. Peru has had a disaster; therefore, the market price of meal throughout the world has increased signifi- cantly, where this could now be considered in the United States, whereas we weren't able to do this before. So you balance all these things, and listening to testimony that has one before me, thinkinc, about all the various things that exist in the ocean, if we were allowed to develop them on an exclusive basis or basically an exclusive basis, how much more dollars would be pumped into our economy? These Japanese rigs that are fishing. off our coast are basically fishing black cod. That black cod is taken back to Japan, boxed, and shipped into New York City. This is foreign exchange money going out of our country, which could be American Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/09/M: CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 dollars if we were excluding some of these -0-rounds. These are little things that are going on in our industry that cause me real great con- cern, and, until we get protected, we're just in a downward situation until we get some protection. Senator TUNNEY. What kind of capital investment has been made in the coastal fishing industry along the west coast in the last 10 yea rs ? Mr. LAZIO. In the last 10 years, I'd say it was basically in the field of what existed prior. There has been improvements in the size of boats. The boats that used to be wooden boats are now basically steel boats. Size has increased probably on an average, an overall average, of at least 15 feet per 10 years. In other words, a boat that was a 40 footer 10 years ago is now a 55 footer and on up the line. That's a pretty good shot at it; but, as Mr. Grotting -presented, we're reaching. out further and further all the time. We are finally getting input from government on a good level, and I refer to the National. Fish- eries Service on the tuna surveys and also their daily reporting basis. They've set up a network of information where the boats can find out where the tuna are, what the weather conditions, are, and the locations of our tuna boats, and these are the coastal tuna boats. These aren't the big equipment. These are the coastal tuna boats that fish tuna between the months of June and October off the entire west coast. We're in a 10-year cycle right now. The fish usually show up off the middle Oregon area first and then move on up off the Washington and British Columbia coast and then some fish do show up in the south. Prior to this 10-year cycle, the fish showed Up down off Mexico first and then moved on up the line. There is improvement in the vessels. Getting into this type of com- petition during the Johnson administration, there was a subsidy pro- gram for construction of fishing vessels and two giant ocean-going trawlers were constructed at a cost Of about $5 million apiece and, both Of those, Sea Freeze Atlantic and Sea Freeze Pacific, which were very similar to what the Russians are using now, both of those vessels were total failures. They just couldn't make it. There are many reasons involved. Senator TUNNEY. Why ? Mr. LAZIO. No. 1, the reason was the people Who were operating them had never been in the fishing business before. They had tre- mendous union problems. They had tremendous startup costs in both of those vessels. They moth-balled them within, oh, let's say a year to a year-and-a-half of their initial maiden voyage. It was just a total failure.. One's now being used as a floater in Alaska. It was bought by a company in Alaska as a floating processing ship, but it doesn't operate on its own. Those are some of the things that I have. Maybe you have some more questions, Senator. Senator TUNNEY. Well, I just have two difficult questions. One, would you address yourself to the impact you see upon the Law of the Sea Conference of this legislation, if it were to pass. That's one. Why don't you answer that first. 3G -709-74?p t. 3 12 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 632 Mr. LAzio. I'm very afraid this Law of the Sea Conference is going to drag and drag and drag. We've had some information that they couldn't even agree on who's going to be seated where, who the chair- man was going to be, and this type of thing. In the meantime, 2 years have gone by already from the original scheduling of this conference. We get the intrusion of these vessels that are coming now in very sig- nificant numbers off the West Coast. We're not going to have a fishery left by the time these guys get through, so that's our concern factor. We hope now, not 4 years from 110W, because 4 years from now there's going to be nothing. The ocean perch to maturity is about 4 years. I could be incorrect on this. Dover sole is 12 to 14 years to maturity, so you've got this working on the ocean bottom taking our fish that are 2 and 3 and 4 years, and grinding them into fishmeal. What are we going to have left by the time we have some laws that are theoret- ically going to prevent this? Maybe I can liken this to a situation. How would we like it if 10,000 people from a foreign nation were allowed to go into our forests to- morrow morning and take whatever they want with no regard to extended long-term conservation measures? Where we're in a farm- ing operation, we just take, out of 100,000 acre tract, we take 100 acres every year or 1,000 acres every year, so we're on a perpetual basis. What's happening now is the perpetual basis of our fisheries, as we who have existed on the coastline for a period of time know, it's being destroyed completely. Sure, you can play around with sta- tistics, but by the time we get the statistics, it's over with, as was the sardine situation, as was the king Crab situation in the State of Alaska. They got into a very serious problem up there. As was the situation off of Peru where they, you know, they wiped that thing down to nothing. I think they had something like 12 billion tons at their peak, and they went down to less than 2 billion tons, and then they shut the fishery off completely for 2 years, and now they're back under some limited quota production; but, as long as we have this wide open situation going off-shore, we're in trouble. We're in 'real trouble. Senator Trxxry. The other thing?The other question is the inter- national ramifications of our unilaterally extending our fishery terri- tory limit out to 200 miles, the impact on islands like Cuba and the impact up in the Alaska area, and perhaps even in the Northern United States, as it relates to Canada'. What do you think about; the legislation, the way it's drafted, and your views of that problem ? Mr. Lino. I think initially there'll be some concern. There's going to be some uproar in the midpoint areas, as have been discussed. You know, whore do yon balance off, Cuba or the Bahamas, or the differ- ence between Russia and the United States? It's very important that the legislation does have provisions to make adjustments in those areas. As far as taking off the California, Oregon, Washington coast and going on a line directly straight out 200 miles and the international implications?the Russians are going to be very upset naturally be- cause they have sot up a?what you might call a traditional fishery since 1965. They've been here every year. They've fished these waters, have been vary concerned, very upset, as were the English in, I think, Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/09/E3: CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 the Iceland area, where Iceland went to a 50-mile unilateral protec- tion situation. There's going to be some problems there that'll have to be worked out. It's hard to say how exactly it would be from my standpoint be- cause I've never sat down on these international-type problems, but it looks like we have a spherical world today where they can be at least talked over. As Dennis indicated, he went to Moscow and sat in on the bilateral negotiations. At least, we are sitting down and talking with these countries on our problems, as our country will have to do with the South American nations if something like this went through with re- gard to tuna people. Senator TUNNEY. Right. Mr. LAZIO. But at least there, they're still going to have a resource available to them under some different type agreement than what they do now, the unrestricted use of those resources. Although they do have some restrictions, as probably you know, in the Eastern Pacific Tuna Treaty, which certain countries subscribe to. Now, I don't know if it's been brought to your attention, a few of the tuna fleet are going to foreign registry, the big distant water seiners because, number one, they drop out a the?the countries they are registered in are not participants to that particular treaty. And, number two, since the Ilammal Protection Act, concern over dolphins, there was concern that they were going to be pushed overboard there and not be able to operate as they have in the past, so these vessels are changing registry to foreign nations. Our tuna fleet is leaving us to a small extent at this time. I think there are something like five or six vessels that made that conversion last year, and big rigs, you know, the big super .seiners. Senator TUNNEY. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Lazio, I appre- ciate your testimony and the help you've given us. Mr. LAZIO. Thallk you very much, sir. Senator TUNNEY. Many thanks. Our next witness is Mr. John Zeirold, legislatiye representative of the Sierra Club. 'STATEMENT OF JOHN ZIEROLD, LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE SIERRA CLUB Mr. ZIEROLD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm John Zierold, and I'm legislative advocate for the Sierra Club of California in Sacramento. Senator TUNNEY. Do you have a written statement ? Mr. ZIEROLD. I'm going to submit one, Mr. Chairman, in detail. -I'm here as sort of a substitute on short notice and haven't had time to set forth a detailed presentation. I only wanted to appear briefly before the committee and express the concern of the Sierra Club about what has been hitherto rather improvident husbandry of coastal re- sources, particularly the fishery resources. We're very concerned that some steps be taken now, either through international or multilateral .or regional agreements, which would allow Us to give better resources .management than we've had before. Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 634 The club has no specific position on the 200-mile territorial limit. It. may or not be an answer to the problem, but we think it evidences. the concern that vort have and, for that, reason, I'm grateful to your committee for going into it further. We do feel, however, that many of the proceedings have been rather. slow. In reaching international agreements, there's greater consistency as to the standards that are, applied. We know, for example, that here. in California over recent yeas there's been a rather dismal history of State legislature enacting strict standards on the allowable catch_ of. such resources as anchovies and just this year herring, and yct no? effective means by which we can protect that resource beyond control or the California fishing industry, so we think that whatever agree- ment is reached or whatever legislation enacted by the Federal Con- ?Tess a ke this issue into account. We do know that the three species concept has been presented as. one means by which this problem might be solved. We're not entirely certain that it would work, that ag course being the control of the, coastal stock by the coastal State. It is a good idea in concept, but were really not certain that it's workable if the standards are per- mitted to be, lower if they're enacted by other coastal states. For ex- ample, the standards in the United States are high. In California, we think that they're very well considered, well taken positions, and, yet, other coastal states 'might very well enact legislation which are far weaker, so we think that this is a caution that the committee ought to bear in mind when making these deliberations. We also think we should, learn from some of the historical lessons. that a re available to us. We've seen resources depleted not only in this, country, but in Peru. I was in Brazil in October of this year doing an economic study. and I was rather appalled that they have not had. the kind of regulations that would protect their fisheries. I think it's ex- tremely important that the United States adopt a position which is, one of high, unassailable standards, and we're going to treat this mat- ter in much greater detail when we submit our written statement, and we would appreciate an opportunity' to have about 10 days to submit that statement. Senator TUNNEY. Certainly. You have 10 days. I think you have, really until the 1011 of May to have it back in Washington. You were here. I saw you while I was asking questions of other wit- nesses, and I'd like you to address some of the problems that I've ques- tioned other witnesses about, if you would. You know what those ques? tions are. Mr. Zmuoi,D. Yes, I follow you, Mr. Chairman. We will address our- remarks to those particular subjects. Thank you very much. Senator TITNNEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Zierold. Our nexi: witness is Mr. Vernon Smith, California Wildlife Fed- eration. I'm going to have to break the hearing at a quarter of 12 and be? back at 2 o'clock. I think that Mr. Smith will be our last witness be- fore the, break. We will hear the remainder of the witnesses between. 2 and 3 :30 o'clock this afternoon. Nice to have you with us, Mr. Smith. Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/09/875: CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 STATEMENT OF VERNON J. SMITH, CALIFORNIA WILDLIFE FEDERATION Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman I am Vernon J. Smith, affiliate _repre- sentative of the California Chairman, Federation, the parent sports-- fla an-conservation organization in the State, the State affiliate of the National Wildlife Federation, and representing abroad spectrum of (outdoor use. And I do list our member councils of clubs for you. Associated Sportsmen of California. California Rifle and Pistol Association. Southern Council of Conservation Clubs. Inland Council of Conservation Clubs. San Diego County Wildlife Federation. California Bowmen Hunters and State Archery Association. Sportsmen's Council of the Redwood Empire. California State Varmint Callers Association. Sportsmen's Council of Superior, California. California Association of Four-Wheel Drive Clubs. Northeastern Plateau Wildlife Council. California Hawking Clubs. California Houndsmen for Conservation. Sportsmen's Council of Central California. - California Wildlife Federation Conservation Council. California's ocean resources have been, and are continuing to be,. abused and degraded by the people of the State. to the point where the decline of quality is directly affecting productive ability. As our recent experience with other countries and the oil embargo. has demonstrated, we must use foresight in the protection of what re- sources we have, and not allow the embarrassing depletion of our off- shore fishery without every precaution. This concern was expressed by our parent organization at their -recent annual convention held in Denver, Colo., on March 28 by pass- ing a 200-mile fisheries jurisdiction resolution, and I'd like to read that, .because I do think it makes some points that I address myself to in the statement. Whereas, fisheries resources for the Atlantic, Gulf, and Pacific Coasts of? North America have been seriously depleted, with some species exploited to the point of becoming rare or endangered; and Whereas, this Nation has not extended its fisheries jurisdiction beyond 12 miles to the 200-mile limit presently claimed by some countries; and Whereas, the United States Government has been unsuccessful in efforts to. persuade other nations to practice principles of fisheries conservation; Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the National Wildlife Federation hereby supports the principle af a 200-mile fisheries jurisdiction for the United States, at least until satisfac- tory solutions to coastal fisheries problems are resolved through international agreements or other diplomatic means; and Be it further resolved that the Federal Government should establish a regu- latory ? fishing area in the 200-mile limit in which all foreign fishing vessels. would be licensed to take fish and other sea resources of the Continental Shelf in accordance with the Truman Proclamation of 1945; and Be it further Resolved, That this organization believes that all monies collected through licensing foreign vessels should be dedicated for law enforcement and improve- ment of the saltwater fishery. The National Wildlife Federation is the wealthiest conservation organization in the world, and representatives from every coastal Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 636 State, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, were represented during arguments on the issue. The .concern about undue pressures put upon_ our offshore fishery by unregulated foreign fishing vessels is shared by our constituents throughout the country. The participat- ing organizations officially continue to endorse a "species concept" and effective management programs based on biological data. How- ever, it does not seem practical to expect resolution of this concept by participating nations for several years. We feel most strongly that something must be done immediately, With more nations adopting a 200-mile zone, the "species concept" seems all the more remote. An interim 200-mile fisheries jurisdiction can provide the protec- tion and, through the licensing provision, the management control over harvest only so long as there -is adequate enforcement. It must be recognized, because of 1116 unique situation off the Alas- kan coast, that some modification of the. area of jurisdiction must be considered. We mMerstand the United States will continue to support a species -concept an the forthcoming Law of the Sea Conference to be held in Caracas, -Venezuela. We would urge consideration of the, 200-mile jurisdiction as an interim measure by our attending delegation. My organization will have a representative attending. Last October, we held a .fisheries Conference in Arcata, Calif. A portion of the agenda was dedicated to the Law of the Sea proposal with panel participants representing vested interests. Dr. John Har- vile, executive secretary of the Pacific Marine Fisheries Commission1 was the moderator. The conclave was well attended by west coast com- mercial fishermea, processors, and sportsmen who overwhelmingly support the 200-n mile fisheries zone. It now appears we can expect foreign fishing off our coast for an- chovy in 1P75. As an attachment to My statement is a copy of a letter that indicates this concern. [The letter follows U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, NATEONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, NA l'IONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE, Seattle, Wash., January 29, 1974. Mr. Wm. HILL, Secretary, Salmon Unlimited. Eureka, Calif. DEAR BILL: We are glad to pas,,, on the information we have on Soviet plans for anchovy off California in 1975 and the projected west coast foreign fishery in 1974. I hope it is of some help. The anchovy subject was brought up IV Its at our last V.5./U.S.S.R. fisheries meeting on Spetember 19, 1973. The Soviet reaction was very noncommital, however they did say that one Soviet RTM stern trawler had done some ex- ploratory anchovy fishing off California this past spring and summer. They claimed that a specific anchovy fishery would require changing to different trawl gear which they were not. for the present, able to do. Although we did not get a definite answer. T would be pleasantly surprised if they were not in mi anchovy fishery by 1975. .? The foreign fishery projection for 1974 IS based on fairly predictable patterns formed by the Soviets and Japanese over the past few years and no large in- crease in effort is presently foreseeable. Of particular importance in 1973 was the arrival of an East German stern trawler in August followed by a Polish stern trawler in September. Both ves- sels conducted a successful fishery for hake and we can expect an expansion Approved For Release 2001/09/07: CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/09E : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 by both countries in 1974. The Poles have already advised us they intend to send at least six trawlers to the west coast this fishing season. In summary, I think we can expect to see up to 60 Soviet stern trawlers and 30 support vessels; 9 Japanese stern trawlers and 6 long liners on an intermit- tent basis; 3 to 5 East German stern trawlers and 6 Polish stern trawlers. If past practices prevail the Japanese will fish black cod, bottom fish and ocean perch with the Soviets, East Germans and Poles concentrating on hake . If we can be of any further assistance, please let me know. Sincerely, DONALD It. JOHNSON, Regional Director. Mr. SMITH. If this new effort is pursued and the participating ves- sels are outfitted with new gear, there is little doubt that the anchovy, and all the other fish that depend on it as an important forage fish, will suffer. California has been extremely cautious in its own harvesting of the anchovy and has implemented an experimental program to observe the effects of the limited take now allowed. Even this controlled pro- gram met with loud and long objections from sports fishermen throughout the State who felt the real value of the anchovy as an important forage fish far outweighed the value of the reduction product. Bait harvesters have also been most vociferous in making their concern known. The great public concern over pelagic forage fish is evidenced by emergency legislation passed by our California Legislature to pro- tect herring stocks. The efforts to protect the resource and limit har- vest by the people of the State provides a good indicator of their concern. Offshore fish, mollusks, crustaceans, and mammals are becoming increasingly important to all nations, and the pressures are increas- ing in proportion. My own involvement as vice chairman of the Cali- fornia Advisory Committee on Salmon and Steelhead indicates a serious Contention that the long, and extensive investment in the anad- romous fishery resources is threatened and that a significant part of the problem is the uncontrolled harvesting of sarmon by foreign fishing vessels off our north coast. Efforts to make hatchery opera- tions more efficient, expanding facilities, improving water quality, controlling disease, rebuilding and protecting upstream spawning and rearing areas, developing private rearing ponds, and setting bag lim- its and seasons all seem on the verge of being a lost cause, unless some effective protection is forthcoming. The large percentage of California's over 2 million sports fisher- men that depend on our ocean resources, the charter and party boat operators, bait haulers, shops, and manufacturers, added to the com- mercial interests and all the related beneficiaries, demonstrate the extensive economic base that can only be provided by a healthy off- shore fishery, well managed and well monitored. That concludes my statement, Senator Tunney. The only other one comment that I would make was when you were addressing the take of the tuna fishery and its importance to the California economy, it didn't consider?it was relating commercial product value against i commercial product value, and t didn't take into consideration the value of the sports fishermen concerns, which is a tremendous $600 million annual concern. Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 6:-18 Senator 'PUNNET. What about the sports fishery? Are you qualified to testify on that aspect of the problem, the sports fishery, and the impact on the sports fishery of the harvesting of the fish off the coast? Mr. SMITH. I don't know in the context that you put the question. T know that T have been representing sportsmen in the State of Cali- fornia for some number of years. I'm presently vice chairman of the San Francisco Advisory Committee. I'm a member of the delegate advisory committee. as -a sports observer there, and I've been past president for 3 years in the California Wildlife Federation, and the total extent of my involvement has been representing sportsmen and sports fishermen. Senator TTTNNEY. Could you specify the types of fish which sports fishermen fish for off our coast and what distances they fish for them? Mr. SMITH. Well, our sports fishing vessels, as you probably know, are getting more sophisticated and larger, and on the northern coast, our greatest concern naturally is with the anadromous fish, the sal- mon, and we have gone to some extensive efforts in trying to increase that productivity. On the southern part of the State of California, of course, our concern is more with bottornfish and these boats and vessels in the sports fishing fleet can go out as far as any of the commercial vessels. The same areas are involved and the same fish. They take them by hook and line and, of course, the method is different, and they have seen and made their concern evident that where there used to be bot- tomfish, where there used to be salmon, the stocks are no longer there. We did have a: case the year before last off the north coast where silver sabnon all of a sudden?we did have good records of fish being in an area, that they just disappeared and there was no way of telling exaetly where they went. We're trying to increase our concern by marking fish with the California Department of Fish and Game and see just exactly where they go. I have one other thing I might, as a matter of record, insert. It's the fact that the California Department of Fish and Game conttacted with Gruen, Gruen & Associates to do a socioeconomic impact of the California fisheries, of the economy, and the study, I think, is -a vailable. Senator TITNNEY. It should be. Can you make a copy of that avail- able? Mr. SMITH. I'm sure I can. If not, I expect the Department of Fish mid Game could. Senator TUNNEY. One of the things that I noted when I was down in San Diego, one of the. witnesses testified that if Mexico extended their territorial waters out to 200 miles for fishing purposes that it would have a very serious :adverse impact upon sports fishing because so many of the sportsmen that leave San Diego travel to Mexican borders to catch fish. I gather from, that that they oppose the 200- mile limit. Mr. SMITH. Well, they may. I think in reference to that what they're saying in a 200-mile fishery jurisdiction is a fact that you do provide to the Federal Government a method of licensing foreign fishing vessels. Now, foreign countries such as Mexico would license U.S7 vessel going down there to participate in sport fishery. I think -that's entirely proper because, without this kind of consideration, the Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP751300380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/0940373: CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 effort, the ability to manage and control your offshore resources, what- ever the nation, is wasted. There has to be management of the re- -sources by the nation, and I think that if there are licenses and ap- plications involved in sport-fishing vessels going into Mexican waters, I think this is totally proper. Senator TUNNEY. And how would you anticipate the, depletion of the coastal anchovy stocks would affect the sport-fishery industry?' Mr. Smurn. Well, this is a very serious thing with us because it is a very?one of the most important forage fish for anadromous fish such as salmon and, since the depletion of the sardine, this vacuum in forage fish was taken up by the anchovy, and it's an important forage fish to all of the other fish off our coast. The halibut, all the rock fishes, the anadromous fish, depend upon this as a forage fish; and, without this food source that was harvested by Russian vessels or foreign vessels, new type of gear would be required. Any reduction in this forage fish would certainly have a disastrous effect upon all those other fish that depend on it. Senator TUNNEY. It's my understanding that there is a real fear on the part of many people who are knowledgeable that our anchovy stocks are threatened. Is that correct? Mr. Smriat. That's correct. As an example, of course, we went to an experimental fishing program that the California Fish and Game Commission endorsed, and they are now taking a limited tonnage of anchovies for reduction purposes, and this is for chickenfeed- and fertilizer and other reduction products, and all through those hear- ings to the present time, there has been a tremendous concern by sport fishermen of the state of _California, the loss of this forage fish was going to have a detrimental impact on their existence as a sport fishing industry, and it is an industry. Senator TUNNEY. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Smith. We will break now and we will return at 2 o'clock. At that time, we will hear from Mr. Earl Carpenter, Mr. Munro, Mr. Speer, Mr. Arnett, Mr. Andreani, and Mr. Kohlhauf. AFTERNOON SESSION Senator TUNNEY. The hearing will come to order. Our first witness is Earl Carpenter, Fishermen's Marketing Asso- ciation, Bodega Bay. I see Mr. Carpenter is not here. Our next witness is A. W. Munro, Santa Barbara and Harold Speer, Moss Landing, Western Fishboat OwnersAssociation. STATEMENT OF HAROLD E. SPEER, MOSS LANDING, WESTERN FISHBOAT OWNERS ASSOCIATION Mr.. SPEER. Senator, I appreciate this opportunity to express my views and those of the Western Fishboat Owners Association. The Western Fishboat Owners Association would like you to be. - aware, as we painfuly are, that a crisis is jeopardizing the very exist- ence of the U.S. commercial fishing fleet. Right now, as I am speaking, there are large fleets of foreign ves- sels, primarily of Soviet registry, fishing our shores in almost mill- Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : ClaoRDP751300380R000500410005-1 tary formation. These fleets include processing ships, supply ships, oil tenders, and normally 12 or 14 of the 250 to 300 foot Pushkin class stern trawlers, each with a catching, handling, and freezing capacity of immense proportion, 60,000 to 100,000 pounds daily. These fleets concentrate on an area or species until virtually noth- ing remains. Their research vessels in the meantime are exploring other areas of our coastline for exploitation. We can hold no hope for the survival of our fishing industry under pressure such as this. For consumers, it adds up to higher prices and a growing scarcity of fish. For the fisherman, it adds Up to economic ruin, and for the marine life off our shores, it may like the Monterey sardine add up to disaster. The southern California based tuna boats, a small but very vocal segment of the U.S. fishing industry, spend a good portion of their fishing time within the 200 mile limits of some of the South American countries such as Peru and Ecuador and, therefore' have consistently opposed the 200-mile limit. We feel, however, that these countries are looking to their futures and should be recognized as the conser- vationists that they are. We of WFOA. helive that the United States desperately needs full control and management over our coastal fishery resources and sin- cerely urge our representatives and all conservationists to join us in support of Warren G. Maimuson's bill, S. 1988. We believe the establisliment of a unilateral 200-mile fisheries juris- diction will give us a means of conserving our diminishing marine protein resources until the Law of the Sea Conference is held and, hopefully, the individual nations have acted to support us in a com- monsense program of conservation.. Senator TrpiNET. Thank you, Mr. Speer. Mr. Munro? STATEMENT OF A. W. MUNRO, SANTA BARBARA, WESTE:RN FISHBOAT OWNERS ASSOCIATION Mr. MuNRo. Yes, I'm Sam Munro. I'm president of the Commercial Fishing Organization of Morro Bay, and I represent here the Western Fishboat Owners from Santa Barbara to Morrow Bay. The Western Fishboat Owners Association wishes to go on record as supporting the Magnuson Bill, S. 1988. WFOA represents some 600 albacore boats with a combined value of over 30 million dollars. Member production exceeds 15 million dol- lars annually or approximately 40 million pounds of prime white meat tuna. That's the albacore, an amount which would provide enough high quality protein to support 67,000 average families for 1 year. About 90% of these WFOA member boats are also engaged in other fisheries, making -a substantial part of their living therefrom. These other fisheries, including salmon crab, halibut, drag fish, west coast shrimp, etc., are directly influenced by foreign intrusion. About -half of the WFOA membership make a substantial portion of their gross income from one or more of these other sources. Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/09Q7 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 WFOA supports any measure which will halt or control foreign intrusion, not because foreign fleets are depleting stocks of albacore per se, but because of the indirect adverse influence of foreign boats. As other fisheries feel, results of depleted stocks, lack of sustained yield, and disregard for conservation methods as practiced by the foreign fleets, WFOA members must depend more and more on alba- core alone for their income. This puts a greater strain on the already heavily fished alloacore. Also, as other boats in the fishing industry not fishing albacore find they can no longer make a living at their preferred fishery, despite being trained and outfitted for such, men witla. a large capital invest- ment in boat and way of life oriented to the sea must turn to albacore. With limited entry or without limited entry, how long can the al- bacore stand up under an ever heavier concentration of boats work- ing them? With greater catches of albacore, how soon will we pass the point of sustained yield? Regardless, the next step is for foreign fleets to learn to purse seine schools of albacore, and there is no doubt that with their sophisticated gear, the Russians will learn to wrap these fish and will be able to harvest albacore in quantities which will deplete the stock or completely wipe them out, as they have done with ether fishes of the east coast and now of the west coast. There will then be no other local or continental fisheries to which the U.S. fishermen can turn. WFOA believes evidence points to a Russian intent to methodically and systematically wipe out each and every fishery of the United States possible, in accordance with aims to control world food supply. WFOA members, along with others, witness the gross mismanage- ment of and total disregard for conservation of seafood resources as practiced by foreign fleets, and they come to the west coast in ever Increasing numbers, with larger boats, and including more nations. Now, seen along with Japanese and Russian ships are those of South Korea, Poland, Formosa, Spain, and, of course, those of Russian satellite nations. WFOA has also become involved in an albacore research program. With moneys raised by the industry alone, nearly a quarter million annually, WFOA has spawned the progressive American Fisheries Research Foundation program. Without a 200-mile fisheries jurisdic- tional zone, beneficial information gained from this research program may further aid foreign countries, and could work to the detriment of the albacore fishermen. There have been many pages written, and many documented re- ports filed, along with photographic evidence to support claims that foreign ships are working within sight of the evidence, west coast. WFOA. does not wish to catalog nor repeat these reports. Now, by adopting the Magnuson Bill, the United States may en- courage and must recognize t'the right of other countries to enforce 200-mile limits. This may create a hardship on a few U.S. fishing boats. Nevertherless, are we to allow our resources to be uncontrollably exploited in order that we may fish in other waters? Again, how long until the foreign fleets deplete those areas of fish also? National pride and patriotism should dictate that we protect our own resources. Our own management programs are futile as long as foreign ships fish between 12 and 200 miles of our shores. Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CRiRDP751300380R000500410005-1 Unilateral establishment of a 2007mi1e. fisheries jurisdictional zone now is imperative. Time is of the essence. Tf we wait until the Law of the Sea Conference is held and its decisions implemented, it may be too late. 'lite Western Fislibo:it Owners Association supports the MaptuSon I I because it offers protection now. As an interim bill, it will protect our coasual fisheries until a. permanent plan or policy can be .imple- men I 4441 or devised by later i nternational treaties. I would like to add a little bit. iii this report, I've neglected to mention the economic impact, of the service and backup industries, the benefits to the economy generated by our industry. ? lbacore, is a tunafish. This fishery is conducted by small, inde- pendent units, usually family or 1-man owned boats with a 2-member, man, operated boat. I share Dennis Grotting's apprehension and not much confidence in the Law of the Sea Conference as it relates to the fishing industry and, in regard to 'Mi.. La.zio's mention of whalers out there. I've seen them myself. I've seen within--inside of the continen- tal 1 Tnited States, I've seen these boats taking whales, a mother ship? Last year, 1 saw one mother ship and six killer boats, whalers, and they had some whales stuck. and we went over to see what this flag was in one whale, and it was not a very big whale either. One of the killer boats came close by to see what we were doing looking at their whale. But he is correct. They are taking the whales. This wasn't a very big one, as I say. There is no chance whatever for a whale to. escape. Once they have found a school or found a whale, with their' sophisticated gear, the whale is gone. There's no way whatsoever that whale can escape because it has to surface. Thank you. Senator TITNIN EY. Thank you very much. 'Mr. Speer and Mr. Munro, just a couple of questions. You men-- tioned the large Soviet fleets. I was wondering how your industry's. fishing practices differ insofar as it relates to Concentrating on species is(4n:teemed. You suggested that the Soviets concentrated on species and then moved to another species. They're concentrating on hake stocks and have been. I guess, for the last few years. MeTmto. Well, we concentrate :on a species, but we use, to me,. it's a rather prmitive method. We haven't learned to wrap these albacore yet. That is, they're very flighty fish. They're somewhat possibly like a hummingbird. It would be very difficult to wrap it.. They know the way to wrap them, where we don't. We fish by hook and line, by trolling. Well, we don't do a little. We do quite a bit of bait fishing too, but that's just ball and line fishing, very similar to- the way the sportsmen catch them. We don't use sophisticated gear to catch them. The escapement of fish in the methods that we take, must be terrific and that's so that the species isn't endangered, but we do concentrate on one particular fish. It's a highly migratory fish.. We fish all the way from?almost Ketchican to as far down south as, Guadalupe, Mexico. I know that we fish off of foreign countries also.. It's 1T1V hope that if there is a 24)0-mile limit adopted by this coun- try and others, that there'll be sonic provisions made that we can fish.. I'm sure we can. We've already made progress, if this goes through, that we'll fish their waters. We're both mostly concerned with the Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/069197 : CIA-RDP751300380R0.00500410005-1 foreign intrusion, not with our own neighbors, that, in the neighbor area. don't know whether I answered your question or not. Senator TUNNEY. We I understand what you're suggesting is that , it's the difference between a family-owned ? drugstore and a nationwide chain, that the procedures that they have for going after the fish and the technology that they use enables them to catch far more of the .school than the techniques that you use, and that they have the ca- pacity to wipe out a species where you do not have that capacity. You 'don't have the technology to do it. Is that right? Mr. MUNRO. 'What I had in mind when I made the statement was -was thinking of the New England fishery of Georgia's banks and. New England, our Bering Sea fisheries, and my own personal expe- rience is, watching these fleets, it's a hair raising thing to see. You ,can see a Russian fleet a long ways away by the smudge over the horizon. I've been headed in from the tuna grounds- and I've come :across the fleet and on three occasions, working off the Columbia River, and there's?like I indicated in my statement at this time, -there's an average or there were about 14 catcher boats. They make a sweep through an area with these nets, 3 to 5 miles long, and then turn; and, as they turn., they pulling that and make a sweep back, 3 to 5 miles. Twelve to 14 of these boats are doing it, each with a ca- pacity, as I indicated of 30 to .50 tons, each boat, a tremendous amount ,of fish. I pulled my own gear and came alongside them. I could have thrown a Coke bottle on the deck. I wanted to see personally what ?they did catch, regardless of what they say they catch. I wanted to -see what they catch, and I was as close as I could get. This net, as Dennis indicated, isn't the kind of net that you can see through. I ,couldn't see what it was, but I did see them on several occasions haul- ing a net in on the boat. I came right up alongside the net. The thing was termendous ; just the bag that held the ah, it appeared to me t be about .8 -feet in diameter and probably 30 -feet long. It's just the 'boor. And that thing was packed. It looked like a huge sausage. But I couldn't. identify the .fish, so I can't say that they had our salmon. They were 12 miles and probably 1 inch off the Columbia river, and I can't say that they had our salmon, but it's a pretty good salmon area and the local salmon boats were working the same area, so I know there were salmon there. Senator TUNNEY. If that kind of activity continues; how much longer do you think our fishing, our coastal fishing, resources will last with that kind of activity? Mr. SPEER. I think that the New England fisheries went from 20 percent of the production of the United' States down to almost noth- ing in 10 years. They're pretty heavily fished, of course, by foreign ships, who are now looking for other more productive areas. They're in our backyard right now off of Moss Landing. There's a large fleet out there. Right from my boat in the slip in Moss Landing, I can turn the radio on and listen to them chattering out there. That's the VHF. It's not the wireless. It doesn't have much range. They're not trawling. As ? a director of Western Fishboat Owners and the secretary- treasurer of that organization, I sit in on a tremendous amount of - Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 44 these conversations of foreign intrusion and often the subject of na- tional security is brought tip. I'm rather suprised that it h.asn't been. brought up today. We've seen those Russians fairly bristling with. pretty sophisticated electronic gear, things that aren't associated nor- mally with the fishing industry, Pueblo-type gear. I know that. I've. beard they make voiceprints of our submarines with their sonar,. which is vital in identifying that submarine or that ship later. I understand that in some of the publications I've read and in discus- sions I've sat in on, they have trailed our U.S. Naval ships during:? their maneuvers. I just mention this in passing. I'm surprised that it wasn't. brought up here. It seems to Me, a vital point. Senator TTTNNEY. It cou'A have, I suppose, been brought up by Admiral Whalen. I don't know if that is a problem or not, but we. have to find out. I want to thank Y on very much, both of you gentle- men. I appreciate your interest in the hearings and expressing an opinion. I think ies important to the hearing record that we have men that are actually doing the fishing. I appreciate your being here.. IN Ir. SPETIZ. Think you, sir. Senator TITNNEY. sAtr. Ray Arnett, director of the California De- partment of Fish and Game. STATEMENT OF ROBERT KEENAN, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME Mr. KEENA N. Thank you, Senator. I am not Ray Arnett. He could' not be here today. My name is Robert Keenan. I am with the Cali- fornia Department of Fish and Game. He had a very short statement, which I would like to read, Senator_ Can I proceed Senator TETNNEY. Yes, please proceed. ME. KEENAN. Foreign fishing vessels have appeared in increasing. numbers off the California coast in recent years. This follows a trend of major fishing and maritime nations to expand their exploration and harvesting activities. Russia and Japan, the principle foreign fishing fleets operating off our coast have concentrated greater effort on the fisheries off Oregon, Washington, and Alaska. Russia has been operating off of California since 1966 and is the most active fishing. fleet in these waters. The Russian fleet has, since its arrival off California, been geared to fish almost exclusively for hake, a species fished only ?slightly by- V.S. fishermen. The, Russians. however' sometimes take large quanti- ties of rockfish mixed with the hake.. As a matter of fact, the inci- dental take of the rockfish b3,-, the Soviet fleet has in some vears exceeded the entire rockfish catch of the California fisheries. They have agreed, however, to avoid fishing for hake in areas of known rockfish populations in order to reduce high incidental rockfish. catches. Soviet fishing activity off California in the spring of 1973 was the largest ever observed by agents of the National Marine Fisharies? Service and California Fish and Game wardens who jointly share the responsibility for maintaining surveillance of foreign fishing vessels operating off our coast. Twenty-three Soviet fishing vessels Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/M07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 appeared in late April on the Cordell Banks west of Point Reyes. This fleet expanded to a total of 35 vessels during May. The Soviet fishing effort was centered from Monterey Bay to Point Arena from late April to early May and from Cape Mendocino to Point St. George in mid and late May: The entire fleet moved out into Oregon waters at the end of May. A fleet of from 6 to 20 trawlers fished off the Klamath River intermittently throughout the summer. In 1969, Japan began to show interest in saury off the California coast because their domestic catch was continually declining. As a result, an experimental saury fishery was initiated during the fall months of that year. Saury, incidentally, is used primarily as bait by the Japanese high-seas tuna longline fishery. This exploratory cruise was considered successful, with five vessels taking over 300 tons. Subsequently, 20 Japanese saury vessels planned to fish in the North Pacific in 1970, but only one ventured as far south as Cali- fornia. This is undoubtedly because the average size of saury is greater in northern schools. If these schools come under increased fishing pressure, the feasibility of fishing for the smaller size schools off California will increase. To date, the very great proportion of foreign fishing effort has been off the north and central California coast. Most of the concerns have been directed toward the fleets of Russia and Japan. However, other nations' fleets are of concern. A Polish vessel has operated and a German vessel has operated off the Pacific Coast and there is the potential that expanded fleet activities from other nations exist. The Soviets have expressed considerable interest in the large population of northern anchovy available in southern California ocean waters and an exploratory cruise by a Soviet research vessel in the sprino, of 1973 demonstrated that anchovy could be taken in reasonable numbers by trawl nets. Our information is that the U.S.S.R. does not plan to initiate an anchovy fishery off California during the next 2 or 3 years. The Soviets have indicated that they would need to work out processing problems before initiating an anchovy fishery. At this time, it's difficult to assess the impact of foreign fishing activities on the stock of fish occurring off the California coast. Be- cause California fishermen do not participate in the hake fishery, judgment as to damage done to these stocks is difficult, there is no question. There does exist a potential threat to our management plans for the rockfish fishery, as the Russian incidental catch is large, and also to the anchovy fishery if the Soviets decide to mount a large scale fishery off southern California, since they would be in direct competition with California fishermen. California has in the past and will continue to support the position of the U.S. State Department relative to the management of marine fisheries. That's the end of the statement. I think one thing that might be significant is the fact that in the month of March we had some 16 Soviet vessels off California' more than we would reasonably expect. I think, as other witnesses have indicated, that fleet of 16 has ex- panded during the month of April, whereas there are some 31 Soviet vessels operating in the same general region. Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 1146 There was a question, I think asked, Senator, relative to sport fishing in Mexico and licensing, -what effect that would have upon the American fishermen in Mexico. Inasmuch as all the fishermen are within 3 miles of the Mexican coast, they are now fishing on a permit issued by the Mexican Gov*:mtnent. and pay a customary license fee. Senator 'lENNEY. I see. You read in the statement for the Agency, which suggests that you're going to follow the State Department position relative to management of marine fisheries. Does that mean Nvhatever the State Department decides to do, you will support it? ME. KEENA. N. I wouldn't say so, sir. No. I believe that the present policy, as I understand it, on the three species concept is what we're supportiag at this time. If they'd 'change that, that'd be another tnatter. Senator TuNNET. So you're not supporting the bill before us? Mr. KEEN-AN. No, I'm not, sir. I 'would like to make mention of another thing in case the previous Witness made you think that the Russians were taking albacore. They're not taking albacore. Senator TUNNEY. What do you preceive, to be the danger to our fisheries as a result of this foreign implosion into our coastal fisheries? 'Mr. KEENA N. Certainly it's a danger; it's a real danger. Senator Tux-NE-v. What mechanism do you have within the Agency to make a determination of whether or not any species is becoming extinct, or is being threatened? Mr. KEN-x. We operate two research boats here in California, Senator. We make .periodic cruises. We have had California scien- tists, fish and game scientists, aboard Russian research vessels. We share that duty with the National Fisheries Service' and through the monitoring of catches. When you do not have fishery yourself, this makes the problem more difficult. If we had a hake fishery, it'd be much easier to determine the amciant of damage that we've, done to the hake stocks. Senator Tt7NNEr. Is there any estimate of damage to any of our fisheries by the foreign vessels? M KEENA N. It's very possible that the hake stocks are reduced, not depleted. Senator TuNNEY. How about salmon? I'. KEF,NA X. 1 don't bel e ye, the re'S any evidence to indicate there, Si],. Senator TITNNEY. So the only possibility would be hake, and you're not sure.? K EENA N. f think because the Soviets themselves indicate the catches of hake have declined, even though it would certainly be a reasonable ttsumption that 'the hake stocks are not as high as they were prior to the Russian invasion. ' Senator ''I'UNNI,11r. What, if any, procedures have you developed for making a determination as to an appropriate, harvesting of a particular fish species in the ocean to maintain the species as a. viable source of a commercial fishery and also just to. in a biological, sense, to maintain the soecies at levels that are acceptable? Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/09/W7: CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Mr. KEENAN. We have in California a number of fisheries, a quota systeni. The anchovies, mentioned here earlier, we fish anchovies in California under a quota system that was 100 thousand tons.. Of course, we lose several hundred thousand tons prior to the close of the season and, consequently, the California Fish and Game Com- mission ordered another 20,000 tons which they're currently fishing. We think the quota system is a sound management tool. However, it takes considerable research to determine the suitable quotas what level of fish we can take. We subscribe to the precepts of the Ameri- can Tuna Commission, which regulates the taking of tuna in the Pacific. This is a quota system. Senator TUNNEY. DO you use a limited entry system? Mr. KEENAN. We are just barely getting into that, Senator. We used limited entry with the very small herring fishery here in San Francisco and Tomales Bay the last season. We intend to continue that. As you know, there are constitutional problems we run into. Senator TUNNEY. I'm having a bit of difficulty reconciling your personal observation that there is a threat to our coastal fisheries from these foreign vessel incursions and the fishery position of the Fish and Game Commission that you're going to support the State Department's position, which at the moment would not seek in any way to manage the resource by extending the territorial limit to 200 miles and thereby limiting foreign entry. Could you perhaps make a connection between your view and the fishery position to the Com- mission? Mr. KEENAN. I think the rationale for our position is that we feel that the three species concept has the most promise for the longest period of time. I think it would solve more problems at this par- ticular point. Now, of course, I agree with the position, if the Law of the Sea Conference continues to go on and doesn't come to any successful conclusion, I think we would certainly look at the situation again. Senator TENNEY. Your view is predicated on the fact that there's going to be a decision made on the Law of the Sea Conference within the next year or so? Mr. KEENAN-. We certainly hope so. Senator TUNNEY. Has there been any thoughts that you would review the situation again? Mr. KEEN-AN. I'm sure that we will have observers at the Law of the Sea Conference and, if necessary, we would review it again. Senator TUNNEY. Thank you very much. Mr. KEENAN. Thank you, sir. Senator TITNNEY. Our next witness is Ronald Andreani. Is Mr. Andreani here? [No response.] Senator TENNEY. All right. Our next witness is Mr. Ed Kohlhauf. Is Mr. Kohlhauf here? Please proceed, Mr. Kohlhauf. 36 709-74--pt. 3 13 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 048 STATEMENT OF ED KOHLECAUF, SALMON UNLIMITED Mr. KOHLITAT:F. Mr. Chairman, my name is Ed Kohlhauf repre- senting Salmon Unlimited. Salmou Unlimited is comprised of repre- sentatives of both the commercial and sportfishing industry, working as a team for the propagation and conservation of the anadromous fish resource. Al the last regular meeting of Salmon Unlimited held in Ukiah April 13, all members present voted unanimously to support S. 1988 for the following reasons: 1. Anadromous fish, especially salmon, are in great danger of being overexploited by foreign fishing vessels on the high seas. 2. Anchovies are now the main food supply for the anadromous fish resource. We have on good authority that foreign fishing vessels are starting to take these forage fish in 1974. 3. Many nations are already protecting their fish resources by means of a 200-mile extension of their fishery zone. 4. United States commercial fishermen are already forced to cur- 1 all t heir activities to allow sufficient spawning escapement because foreign fshing vessels take an unfair amount of immature salmon on tie high seas. 5. Large modern foreign fishing fleets using sophisticated elec- tronic gadgets are capable of exploiting any species of fish to an extent to where tt will ha almost impossible to bring these resources back to their formal abundance. 0. While the coastal nations of the world will soon try to come to an agreement at the Law of th.e, Sea Conference on how hest to protect the ocean resources, many a year will pass before such agree- ments are going to be implemented. Therefore, it is of the utmost importance that during this interim period the United States ex- tends its contiguous fishery zone to 200 mutical miles at the earliest possible time. 7. A. large segment of the population of the United States is de- pendent ::'or their livelihood upon a healthy fishery resource., off its coasts. For all of these aforementionett and other reasons, Salmon Un- imii ed urges the Congress of the United States to extend its fishery coin iguoas zone to 200 miles, preferably by passing S. 1988 by Senator Magnuson for the benefit and welfare of its citizens. Senator Tr-NNE-Y. Can you tell me what you consider to be the impact of the fisheries off the coast of California, as a result, of the intrustion of the Soviet fleet? Can you tell me what you consider to be the impact on such as the salmon fishery? I. KorrturAcF. You have heard testimony earlier that one par- t au far year the salmon resource all at once disappeared. It's been tracked along the U.S. waters by -Fishermen and it just disappeared, mid we can not, say that foreign fishermen took it because something rise not have happened, but over the years, they didn't,. The big danger is that their hake are gone too. They may still hold to agreements as long as it suits them and I'm afraid that once they lose the ability to take fish as they please and before any Law Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/09/%746 CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 of the Sea come to the States, implement, just clean out and take what they can take. The Law of the Sea Conference in 1958 in Geneva-, all nations say it is necessary. Conservation of stOcks is necessary. They should not be fished to more than what is a substantial yield, but also agreed that at the time scientific knowledge definitely points to the problem and scientifically states that these fish are in need of protection. It is already too late. That's where the danger lies. If you don't get 200 miles, we do need some concept to conserve our fishery during the interim period. That is the most important part. Senator TUNNEY. Does your association have any contact with the tuna fishermen and have you attempted to resolve the differences that you have with regard to this legislation? Mr. KOHLTIAUF. Not directly, no. We did not talk to them. We know their problem. I guess if I was an owner of a big tuna seiner, I would be against the bill too. The pocketbook tells the story. Senator TENNEY. It sure does. Let me ask you this. What is the investment that you have in your boat or equipment? - Mr. KommAuF. Let's SCC. DO you want just the sportfishing Or the commercial boats? Senator TUNNEY. You're a commercial fisherman, aren't you? Mr. KommAuF. No, personally, I'm sports, the Golden Gates Sportfishing. Senator TUNNEY. All right, I'd like sports then. How many people participate in sportfishing for salmon? What kind of an impact, dollar impact, would it be?" Mr. KoinArAuF. We operate about 120 boats in the Golden Gate Sports Association, and that comprises maybe 80 percent of party boats, sportfishing vessels, and we can safely say that we transport about 10,000 individual fishermen to the fishing grounds fishing for salmon. Now, Salmon Unlimited and all its members have been really hard-working towards a goal to get more fish out in the ocean. We've been very successful in getting the Department of Fish and Game to transport them downstream for better survival. We've been very successful, but our fishing catch was about the same. The spawning grounds, which is the real measurement of fishery has been down the last couple of years and come up some this bast season, 1973. We do fishin the sportfishing right off here, San Francisco, where the fish Come out from the river system. We have?It shows right out here. It seems the fish stay in this neighborhood, and we do fish mostly 2 to. 21/2 year-old fish, and our catch has increased tremendously the last 10 years over the 10-year period before on account mostly of practices to raising the fish to a larger size and escorting them downstream to keep them free of problems in the river, but those fish don't seem to 0-row up. They don't seem to get back to the spawning grounds. It grow be the same proportion .being caught in the commercial fishery the next year, the year after, and a bigger proportion should be returning to the spawning grounds, and they don't come in the numbers that they're supposed to be according to what's happening or what is released out in the oceans. Something happens to them Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : 9tRDP751300380R000500410005-1 out in the ocean. There's no doubt about that. What is it, we don't know. We have problems in the sealands. We have water problems also, yes, but still proportionate, I do believe that we lose salmon to the foreign fishermen. Several of our members in Salmon Unlimited like the one gentleman said he tried to observe, what they are catching, lait it can't be done. Senator TUNN EY. These 10,000 fishermen that, you transport, how much does that represent, in the way :of money that they pay for the privilege of going out in the gulf? KOTILTIA The anadromons fishermen, the average cost of the boat itself is $20. It doesn't take any transportation or whatever else he has to spend to rent the boat, the sinkers, the cost of the boat. Senator TuNN EY. Are we talking about what, $200,000? Mr. IiirtmnAtin. Yes. Senator TUNNEY. Per year? Mr. KOHLIIAITY. Per year. Senator TONNEY. For your association. Well, thank you very much Mr. Kolithauf. I appreciate 'A. M KOHL-HAUT. Thank you for letting me testify. Senator TtyNNEr. The San Francisco Tyee Club, Mr. Robert Brown, conservation chairman, submitted a statement to the com- mitt ee. Mr. Brown, we're going to have to close this hearing at the very latest at 3 o'clock and we have Mr, Charles Moe, the Associated Sportsmen of California, also. We have your statement. If you would like to add something to it orally for a few minutes, I'd be delighted, but I have to leave at 3 O'clock, but we will incorporate your statement as part of the record. Did you have anything that you'd like to add to it orally? STATEMENT OF ROBERT BROWN, CONSERVATION CHAIRMAN, SAN FRANCISCO TYLE CLUB Mi. Browx. Not really, Senator. The pronunciation is Tyee. That's an Indian word for king salmon. I have really nothing to add other than what is lucre. I think our statement covers it pretty well. The program that's underway now that's mentioned in here and under the Manchester program, which I made reference to here, in Washington, they are currently raising in the area about 2 to 4 million salmon a year, both commercial and sport, and this is the intent, her,,, of this program. It's a feasibility program. We're starting to propagate the fish here in the bay if it is feasible and we hope to get, into the ocean, but I think the statement pretty well speaks of our position. Senator TUNNEY. Well, it's very clear. Mr. Buowx. I appreciate the opportunity. Senator TIT-NM:Y. And we appreciate you submitting it too. Thank you very much. Mi'. BROWN. Thank you. Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 651 [The statement follows:] STATEMENT OF ROBERT BROWN, CONSERVATION CHAIRMAN, SAN FRANCISCO TYEE CLUB I am Robert Brown, Conservation Chairman of the San Francisco Tyee Club which Club is based in San Francisco and is primarily a Club dedicated to the conservation, perpetuation and management of the salmon resources of the State of California. It is imperative that this club voice its serious objection to the uncontrolled exploitation of the ocean waters of the Atlantic, Pacific and Gulf Coastal Zones and we believe that unless serious and immediate action is taken by the United States Government to establish at least a 200 mile limit disastrous depletion of fish inventories in our waters under the presently antiquated 12 mile limit will occur. The San Francisco Tyee Club, by nature of its charter as a non-profit Cali- fornia Corporation diligently engages in projects intended to enhance both the sport and commercial fisheries. An annual Scholarship Fund for graduate students in marine biology awarded toward the propagation and -conservation of ocean fisheries and in addition and working in conjunction with the Univer- sity of California (Sea Grant Program) and the Tiburon fisheries laboratory, U.S. Department of Commerce National Fisheries Service we are embarking ori a salmon rearing program in San Francisco Bay on a non-commercial basis. Through these programs and those currently underway at the Manchester Project in the State of Washington literally millions of salmon will be pen raised and turned out into the ocean benefiting both sport and commercial fish- ing efforts. Under the present unreasonable 12 mile limit a substantial loss of these nur- tured fish will be found in the foreign nets and will not in any benefit those organizations who are diligently working toward a betterment of the ocean fishery for the American public. We respectfully urge the committee to approve the 200 mile off shore fishing Senator TUNNEY. And how about Mr. Charles Moe, who has sub- mitted a statement for the Associated Sportsmen of California. Po you have anything to add? Mr. KOHLTIAUF. Charles Moe had to leave. Senator TUI'NEY. Well, it's very clear that the Associated Sports- men of California also request that we endorse the 200 mile concept. It'll be incorporated in the record. [The statement follows:] STATEMENT OF CHARLES MOE, PRESIDENT, ASSOCIATED SPORTSMEN OF CALIFORNIA Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: I am Charles Moe, President of the Associated Sportsmen of California which group represents approximately 7500 members. This organization is active in the 14 Bay Area Counties and has been in ex- istence for 50 years during which time the membership has actively participated in the preservation, wise use and management, enhancement and maintenance of our natural resources. Accordingly we have in the past taken strong actions through legislative means to protect from commercial despoilment several of our anadromous fishes such as striped bass and salmon as well as other species such as catfish. Our memberhip has long been concerned with the activities of foreign fishing vessels off the California Coast and the threat posed by the extremely sophis- ticated fishing methods of these foreign commercial fishermen. ? Peculiarly we do not hesitate in imposing laws and restrictions on our own local commercial fishermen so as to avoid a depletion of a resource but then we have no control over those foreign nations who are actually endangering our fishery resources through over fishing and modern methods. Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 652 In addii-ion to our own commercial thdiermen whose livelihood hangs in the balance we must also be concerned with the welfare of the entire population of the United States whose dependence on the resources of the ocean waters is of great consequence at the present time but future needs most certainly will be of far greater proportions. Therefore, The Associated Sportsmen of California does respectfully request that the Committee endorse the 200 mba zone concept On the Atlantic, Pacific and Gulf Coasts thereby providing the means to avoid complete extinction of many of our ocean resources. Senator TUNNEY. Is Mr. Carpenter here? [No response.] Senator TUNNEY. Is Mr. Andreani here? [No response.] Se!'atm Tt2NNEy. All right. This .concludes our hearing in San Francisco, and the committee will be considering the record, not only of this hearing and the one in San Diego, but the ones that have been held in Washington, the State of Washington, 'Washington, D.C., Alaska, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island over the next few weeks. I would anticipate that if Senator Magnuson's plan is con- tinued in the future as it has been articulated in the recent past that we will be marking up this legislation sometime before June. So I appreciate the time, the effort of the witnesses, who came here and made available to us their expertise, and the hearing will now ad- journ. [Whereupon, at 3 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 INTERIM FISHERIES ZONE EXTENSION AND MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1973 FRIDAY, APRIL 26, 1974 U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANS AND ATMOSPHERE, ashington,D.C. The subcommittee met at 10 :15 a.m., room 5110, Dirksen Build- ing, Hon. Warren G. Magnuson (chairman of the committee) pre- siding. OPENING STATEMENT BY THE CHAIRMAN The CHAIRMAN. The committee will Come to order. This morning we continue a series of hearings on the question of whether the United States should extend its fisheries contiguous zone to 200 nautical miles beyond our shores. -Hearings have been held in Washington, D.C. prior to this, in Washington State, in Alaska, and last week in California, and there will be hearings in the New Eng- land area in the next 2 or 3 weeks. As I promised on the first day of the hearings, all sides of this question will be provided ample opportunity to give their views. To date, the testimony we have received is overwhelmingly in favor of the legislation being considered. Depletion of our marine fisheries is a fact. All the evidence, none to the contrary, is that it is going down, down, down. And the inability of existing international ar- rangements to prevent further depletion has been documented also. Today we will hear from those segments of the fishing industry who are opposed to this legislation. After reviewing advance copies of their testimony, I can state that none of the witnesses today dis- putes either the fact of depletion of or fish resources or the complete ineffectiveness of existing international arrangements. Nobody dis- putes that. And I am here to discover the exact nature of the op- position when these two things are happening, and I hope there won't be testimony- on wishful thinking or testimony attributed to the fact that we are afraid of some other nation's doing something to us that they are doing now. I don't see how we can continue to let them have everything they want and we do nothing to protect ourselves. - Many of the witnesses here today have been here before; and most of the time they are here complaining about other countries doing something to them. And to me there is something inconsistent. But I (653) Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 ti54 am open-minded. I and the committee. want to hear from all of you and see what your viewpoints am Year after year American fisheries people have been in this com- mittee room complaining about discrimination of other nations, or some fear that they may do something?and we are trying to correct Chat. Now, we, have quite a few witnesses here and I think maybe, Bill Utz, you and Mr. Sallheron and Mr. Manermann might come up together because you are going to discuss the same subject. 1Ttz, do you want to testify first.? 7;1r. UTZ. Yes, sir. Tie CHAIRMAN. We will put all of the statements in the record in full, in case you want to just highlight them. .1 ball that microphone as close as you can and talk as loud as you can. because the acoustics in this room are not too good. Ni. IJrz.Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. All right.. STATEMENT OF WILLIAM NELSON UTZ, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL SHRIMP CONGRESS Mr. Urrz. Mr. Chairman, I am Bill Utz, appearing here today as executive director of the National Shrimp Congress. The National Shrimp Congress, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal lieadeputAers in Washington, D. C. This nonprofit organization was formed in 1956. It is an organization whose membership is made up primarily of sh}imp produeers throughout the gulf coast States. Before I begin my own testimony, I would like to submit for the record ri resolution which was adopted by the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission. The Commission is a compact that was created by the Congress and it is composed of representatives from all I he gulf States, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas, and there are three members from each of those States par- ticipating in the compact. One is the head of the salt water fisheries, one is the representative appointed by the legislature of each State, and one, is a citizen appointed by the Governor, usually a commercial or sports fisherman. That resolution in essence says they require the Congress of the United States to withhold any unilateral fisheries extension legisla- tion prior to the conclusion of the Law of the Sea Conference, that convenes in .1111 e 1974. Irrhe resolution follows:I RESOLUTION Whereas. the Gulf of Mexico supports some of the most important and valu- able fisheries of the United States, ANI), Witereas, any unilateral fisheries extension legislature by the Congress of the United States would have a detrimental effect on the distant water shrimp and spiny lobster fisheries, AND, Whereas, the United States State Department has been working for the past seven years to bring about a Law of the Sea Conference in order to address the probbms affecting worldwide fisheries iresources management, Now, therefore be it Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/09/665: CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Resolved, That the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission request the Congress of the United States to withhold any unilateral fisheries extension legislation prior to the conclusion of the Law of the Sea Conference that con- venes in June 1974. Passed unanimously this 20th day of March, 1974, in New Orleans, La. A copy of this resolution is to be distributed to all the members of Congress in the states comprising the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission. This is to certify that the foregoing is a true copy of an original Resolution adopted by the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission, March 20, 1974, at a regular Commission meeting held at the Monteleone Hotel, New Orleans, Louisiana. JOSEPH V. COLSON, Executive Director, Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission. Mr. UTZ. For my own testimony in regard to S. 1988, in my judg- ment if it is reported from this committee and passed by the U.S. Senate at this time, it will be the most damaging blow the U. S. Senate could render the U. S. shrimp industry and the American fishing industry as a whole. The CHAIRMAN. Do you speak for the fishing industry as a whole? Mr. UTZ. No, sir, I speak for the shrimp industry. The CHAIRMAN. Then it shouldn't be in your testimony. Mr. Prz. I am saying it is my judgment, Senator. The CHAIRMAN. Your personal judgment? Mr. UTZ. Yes, sir. To lend credit to that statement, I would like to set forth some facts and figures on the U. S. fishing industry. According to National Marine Fisheries Service statistics for 1973: Ex?vessel values: Total U.S. catch $907, 400, 000 Total U.S. shrimp 241, 307,000 Total U.S. tuna 131, 573, 000 Total U.S. salmon Total shrimp, tuna, and Salmon 125, 113, 000 497, 903,000 The American shrimp catch represented roughly 26 percent of that total value, and the shrimp, tuna, and salmon catches account for roughly 55 percent of the total value. There are here today representatives from the tuna and salmon industries, so I will let them speak for the specific impact that this legislation would have on their industries, but as far as the shrimp industry is concerned, it would have the following impact specifi- cally: S. 1988 would negate the Brazilian-American shrimp treaty. It would foreclose present possibilities of workable agreements with Mexico. It would negate all U. S. efforts towards a fisheries agreement in the Law of the Sea Conference and limit U. S. participation to sup- porting a 200-mile fisheries provision or sitting by while some other form a agreement is reached. It would have an indirect impact on U. S. coastal shrimp fisher- men by forcing upon them excessive competition from those high- seas fishermen forced to return to the U. S. gulf. Approved For Release 2001/09/07: CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 656 As far as the American-Brazilian situation is concerned, we have in effect today a highly workable treaty with Brazil. This treaty was worked out approximately 2 years ago, and for the past 2 yea?s, it has worked on a purely voluntary basis, inasmuch as the enabling legislation was not signed into law until the final days of 1973. The Cf [AIRMAN. That was after they put in a 200-mile limit, wasn't it'? Mr. T7'rz. They have always had in their constitution a 200-:inile territorial sea. The C HAIRMAN. This was after they had a 200-mile limit? Mr. U'rz. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Sure they do. Mr. UTz. But I might point out the only leverage we had in negotiating that treaty, Senator, was the fact we did not recognize 200 miles. If we did recognize 200 miles The CHAIRMAN. M. I know all about that treaty, and I know -A7hy they did it. Proceed. Mr. UTz. All right, if we did legislate 200 miles, Senator-- The Citianm AN. There's a lot about that treaty that is not down in the record. Mr. UTZ. There's a lot about laws that is not down in the record, Senator. But if we did recognize 200 miles, right now that treaty has been extended by letter to June 30, 197d. We have to go back and meet the Brazilians and renegotiate the extension of that treaty. If this law is passed, how could we go back to talk with the Brazilians in terms of the iwgotiation? We can't. We will have to go back to talk not as negotiators, but as pur- chasers, because they will be saying, "We own the shrimp. We Own everything 200 miles off shore." And if you pass S. 1.9RS, how can we deny that? Because this Governmert will, in essence, be claiming exactly the same type of treatment.. S. l9l; would foreclose present possibilities of workable agree- ments with Mexico. At present we have no agreement with Mexico. ...kt present. Mexico does not claim a 200-mile contiguous fishing zone. Many of her Latin neighbors do. They have been exerting great pressures to have Mexico decl Are a :).!00--ini1e contiguous zone. For some time now Mexico has said they are interested in the ar- rangement we have with Brazil, and they have intimated they would Iv willing to discuss a similar agreement with the United States. The Gulf shrimp industry, .particularly Texas and Florida, are de- pendent upon those fisheries that would be caught up in a 200-mile confrontation with Mexico. In my judgment, if this legislation is put into effect, we would force Mexio to immediately claim a 200-mile fishery zone also. This bill would wipe out all the efforts that we have exerted to date toward acquiring a fisheries agreement in the Law of the Sea Conference and limit our participation there to supporting a 200- mile fisheries provision or sitting by idly while some other form of agreement is reached. Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/09/W i: CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Since early in 1972 I have attended all of the preparatory con- ferences that have taken place in regard to that Law of the Sea Conference. I have had the privilege of being designated one of the four official fisheries representatives in the U. S. delegation to the conference. I might add that we are fortunate to have here today four of the six fisheries representatives who have consistently been at every conference that has been held to date in preparation for that Law of. the Sea Conference, and I might also point out that five .of those six would be consistent with the position I am taking in regard to S. 1988. But I can tell you, Senator, that if the language that is in this legislation is passed, we will not have one lee to stand on when we go to Caracas to negotiate, we can only stand by and be a rubber stamp for the 200-mile legislation. Up to date we have bean trying to negotiate a treaty that would be-- The CHAIRMAN. You sound to. me like the State Department cleared your speech. Mr. Urrz. No, sir. The CHAIRMAN. It didn't? Mr. UTz. No, sir. The CHAIRMAN. All right. Mr. UTZ. I usually write my own?band-made. There will be nothing left for the American fishing industry to negotiate. All our efforts will have been for naught without anything that we can do about it, because up to this point we have been trying to put together a fishery position, and we did, in fact, agree within the industry to support the species approach, and that approach, if it is possible to get it worked into an international agreement, would be able to protect the whole American fishing industry without serious damage to any one segment of the American industry. Further, S. 1988 has an equally drastic impact on our efforts to negotiate any multinational fishery agreements because of the bad faith posture it creates for the U. S. negotiations. This bill rejects? it unilaterally rejects-- the multinational agreements to which we are parties. In 1958 this country was a party to four conventions that came out of a Major conference held in Geneva: Convention on Fishing and Conservation of the Living Resources of the High Seas. Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone. Convention on the Continental Shelf. Convention on the High Seas. All four of these conventions were ratified by the United States. Therefore, We view them as law, applicable to us as a country and to each and every citizen of this country. These conventions are recognized in varying numbers by other nations: The Fisheries Convention has 33 member nations; the Ter- ritorial Sea Convention is accepted by 42 nations, the Continental Shelf Convention by 51 nations, and the High Seas Convention by 52 nations. Approved For Release 2001/09/07 CIA-RDP751300380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : c3AgRDP751300380R000500410005-1 Each and every one of these conventions is recognized to varying degrees, ranging from international legislation to general acceptance as international ntw, by countries throughout the world. The United States, as I stated, has recognized those conventions, yet S. 1988 would deny recognition. In fact, it would go directly contrary to certain provisions of those very treaties which the U. S. Senate, has ratified. In my judgment you can not blow hot and cold at the same time about anything, and we either honor our agreements or we don't. We can not pick and choose which segments of a multinational agree- ment that we will honor, which we will breach, and which we will unila feral ly amend. This legislation, in my judgment, is in conflict with the Geneva Convention on Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone. That particular convention clearly spells out, that the right of a coastal nation to establish a contiguous zone to its territorial sea is limited. That pro- vision states: The contiguous zone may not extend beyond 12 miles from the baseline from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured. So not only is this bill in conflict with the multinational convention which we have ratified, it is in conflict with generally accepted inter- national law and, by a mere tally of numbers, it is totally out of step with the nations of the world. According to statistics released by the State Department, 92 nations claim only 12 miles or less as their fishing limits. Contrarily, there are only 10 nations which claim a 200-mile fish- ing zone. Those nations are: Argentina; Brazil; Chile; Ecuador; El Salvador; Nicaragua; Panama; Peru; Sierra Leone; and 'Uru- guay. Senator, soMe of those nations have been declared, by Members of this very Congress, as pirates when they took ships off their coast within a 200-mile, area. It seems we are picking up some strange friends. While those countries that are parties to the Convention on Fish- ing and Conservation of the Living Resources of the High Seas include, few, if any, of the offenders of the Northwest Pacific and New England fishing grounds, at least that Convention and its pro- visions is recognized by over three times as many nations as those who would concur with the unilateral action this bill proposes. What I am suggesting for this Congress is a more positive ap- proach to move for strong notion under those multinational agree- ments to which we are presently a party. Such action would have greater international acceptance., but, most importantly, it would have the most immediate beneficial impact on the fishermen you seek to help. Such action would accomplish a great deal for the fishing industry. The industry could unite and support such efforts. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Utz, there is no question about what you say. That is the best way to do it. Mr. UTZ. Yes, sir. Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 659 The CHAIRMAN. But I have waited 16 years and nothing happens, and our fishermen have waited, and in the meantime?maybe not shrimp, but many of our other stocks are being depleted. They are going down, down, down. We have only four halibut vessels going out in the Bering Sea this year. And I know the countries that have the 200-mile limit. We are talking about the other fishing countries that are depleting our stocks, such as Russia and Japan. We found a Polish Ship off our west coast recently. This is what we are talking about. Now, if we could get an international agreement, that would be fine. I was at Geneva?that was 16 years ago? and we couldn't get it done. I am a member of the Law of the Sea Conference. You are one of the advisors on it, I believe. So they met almost 2 years in New York, didn't they? Mr. UTZ. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. All right. And they passed one resolution. You know what that was? To recess and go to Caracas. That's a great accomplishment in 2 years, isn't it? Then from Caracas they are going to Vienna. I don't know how long this goes on. This is our problem. It we could do these things by international agreement it would be fine. But it isn't so much the countries that have the 200-mile limit. It's the countries that are coming off our shores. We don't fish .off Russia, but they fish on our grounds. This is why the problem needs?as you testified to .and from your -viewpoint of the shrimp industry?some kind of drastic action. If this goes on, there -won't be any- fish off our shores at all, and if you think it's bad, I can tell you off the North Pacific coast, the depletion is such that there are no ocean perch left at all, and the hake is going too. You don't take it. Now, what are we going to do about that? You haven't got an agreement, and I'll make you an even bet?I'd be willing to bet you won't come to any agreement in Caracas. What you say is correct. If we could have these voluntary agreements all over, that would be fine, wouldn't it? Mr. UTZ. Yes, sir; it would. The CHAIRMAN. That would be it. But we haven't got them and I don't think we are going to get them. When you talk about Law of the Sea agreement, even if we got one, it would be 8 or 4 years before the nations ratified it. By that time we'd be dead in some of our fisheries; they'd be gone. I don't know and I never could understand my salmon people as to the effect of a 200-mile limit. The salmon are out there 2,000 miles. It doesn't affect them at all. Our treaty with Japan and Canada is still in effect out there. The bill specifically exempts all present treaties, including your shrimp treaty. It exempts it. I just can't see the connection between these treaties and protecting our shores from the depletion in the North Pacific. Wait until you hear the New England people coin- Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 660 plain about what foreign fleets are doing out there. I don't see any connection between that and treaties for fisheries beyond the 200 Incidentally, how much shrimp is caught within 200 miles? Mr. Iffz. -Within 200 miles? The CHAIRMAN. Put those figures in the record, if you have them. Mr. trgz. All right; I have those figures. The CHAIRM :1N. And how much of your total catch outside 200 miles? Mr. I FTZ. We have very little caught outside of 200 miles. (rfAIRMAN, Well, you will just be protecting the ones inside. Mr. UTZ. Not quite, Senator, because we have distant-water boats that would be forced back home. The CHAIRMAN. I am just saying this is the problem. I don't dis- agree with you. I have heard at home that if you have the 200 miles you will do something to the salmon treaty. The abstention line is way out in the Pacific Ocean, the 175th meridian, and has nothing to do with the 200 miles. These are our coastal fisheries. r. UTZ. Senator, the point I ami trying to make in this is that we aren't enforcing the laws and treaties and conventions that we are party to now, so if we aren't doing that now, why is there any reason to believe we are going to enforce a 200-mile perimeter? This bill has been sold to a lot of people at the dock level as some kind of guardian protective shield. The CirminkrAN. The point I am making is it does not affect any present treaty. Mr. Iihz. It does. The CHAIRMAN. No, it specifically exempts them. If the wording isn't clear, we will amend it. It does not prohibit anyone from making other treaties. Mr. UTZ. There is no way to continue the Brazil treaty after the June 3G expiration if we put in wording that we recognize the 200- mile fishing- zone. 'I'he CHAIRMAN. What is their argument? They can recognize it. Why should they complain -about us? Mr. [I'm. But our fishermen are down there within 200 miles, and we say that is international waters.' The CHAIRMAN. We've said that about tuna off Ecuador and Peru. We have sent missions down there and cut oft their aid and every- th i ei se, and they still insist upon it. And I don't know why you can't (hal with a person when you both have the same things. Mr. point is, if we are arguing over whether what is on that table is yours or mine and you say it is your table, then if I recognize: that anything beyond this table is your table, then we don't have anything to debate about because it is very clear that I recog- nize everything over there is yours. The. Cin-Ara-mAN. Well, you've got a funny version of diplomacy. I think you've got to get tough with them. Mr. Iirrz. You do have to get tough with them, but if you pass your law and a Russian comes over here and says, "We don't r&3ognize 200 miles" Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 661 The CHAIRMAN. We talked to the Russians and the only time we got a zone was when we got tough with ,them in Moscow. They don't understand anything else. And I still say we have been patsys at the world's conference tables in fisheries of all kinds. And I'll write a book about it if you want me to. - Mr. UTZ. Senator, I say you need to get tough where there is a problem, but not get tough in a way that creates a problem some- where else. The CHAIRMAN. You may get promoted. They may ask you to come down to the Department where they have been all these years and accomplished nothing. Go ahead. Mr. UTZ. Well, the point that I was trying to make was about do- ing something to enforce the laws that we already have, and the treaties that are already in existence that would affect fishermen and fisheries, action that would be within the framework of commitments that we have now with other nations. And we think it would strengthen our position if this government showed that they were going to &sfret tough with existing treaties, rather than to pass some unilateral action that is contrary to what we have said in the past.. And S. 1988 The CHAIRMAN. Well, Congress doesn't enforce treaties. The ad- ministrations do and they haven't done it. Mr. -UTZ. Is there any reason to believe they are going to enforce 200 miles? The CHAIRMAN. That's the trouble. Nothing has happened. I'm glad I stirred you all up. Maybe something will happen. Mr. UTZ. Senator, if you had a speed limit around this town that said you couldn't go but 25 miles an hour and everybody was run- ning 80, and you had plenty of policemen but couldn't (Yet them to enforce it, would it do you any good to pass a 10-mile speed limit.? The CHAIRMAN. That's the argument downtown' "Wait and see; wait and see; we're making progress. Let the other fellow go." And nothing has happened. Mr. UTZ. I'm not asking that we wait and see. The CHAIRMAN. All right, go ahead with your statement. Mr. Urz. S. 1988 already has divided the U.S. fishing industry It has exhibited to the world that we have a divisive, squabbling indus- try. This would be repugnant to any existing agreements, and, as I say, it would wipe out any posture whatever at the Law of the Sea Conference, except as a rubber stamp to those few countries making similar Further, the worst damage that it would create is that it would force our distant-water shrimp vessels back into the Gulf. Those ves- sels, approximately 400 to 600 in number, have a capability of catch- ing roughly 25 percent of the catch last year that was caught in the Gulf. They would be in competition with thousands of small shrimp boats within the Gulf. Louisiana alone reports in excess of 14,000 commercial shrimp licenses were issued last year. Thousands of those vessels, while quite efficient and more than competitive with those Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 662 foreign fleets presently appearing in the Gulf, would be margiral at best when confronted with competition of such magnitude as these distant-water fleets would present. ' The CHAIRMAN. On that point, when you put in the record how much shrimp is caught beyond 200 miles?where do you get that number? Mr. UTz. The National Marino Fishery Service statistics reflect that our distant-water shrimp fleets last year accounted for approx- in uttely---- The CnidamAN. I am trying to get at approximately how many boats are involved beyond 200 miles. Mr. UTz. Beyond? The CHAIRMAN. Of the total catch. Mr. IfTz. We are talking about the high-seas fishermen that are U.S.-fla!r vessels, but they operate beyond what we would cor,sider a U.S. boundary or 200-mile boundary. They are in international waters now, outside of the territorial waters of whichever country it is that they are fishing off of. The CHAIRMAN. You must have the records of the shrimp catch within 200 miles, Mr. ITTz. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. And then what I want to know is how many op- erate beyond 20f, Mr. ITTz? None. The UnAramAic. None? I don't know why you are worried about the coast of Brazil. r. I TTZ. I think you missed the point. We have no shrimp fisher- men operate immediately in what we consider or what we would call the U.S. Gulf if we had 200 miles, that are presently operating in international waters off the coast. But we do have, as I stated, 400 to 000 U.S.-flag vessels that are operating in international waters off those foreign coasts that would have to come hack into the Gulf coast. They do not presently fish within the Gulf. lite CHAIRMAN. Why do they have to come back? We are not both- ering the treaty with Brazil. MT. I T.rz. They have no other place to go. We are bothering the treaty with Brazil. The ( i:1[AIRAI:AN-. This bill doesr.'t bother the treaty you have with -Brazil. They can fish off the coast. I don't understand this. They can still fish where they want to fish in_ international waters. r. UTz. The point, Senator, is that this bill would force Mexico to declare 200 miles-- The CHAIRMAN. Now you are representing the State Department of Mexico How do you know what they are going to do? Mr. 1 TTZ. We have listened to therii. We have heard them. The C RAIRMAN. We can make a treaty with them under the bill. Mr. U'rz. We an make a treaty The CHAIRMAN. They have been talking about a treaty for 25 years and haven't made one-25 years that I know of--25, maybe 30. Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 663 But what I am trying to get at is: You say they have to exercise an option. They don't at all under this bill. They can fish where they have been fishing shrimp. Mr. Urz. After the 30th of June, if this went into effect, they The CHAIRMAN. You are assuming that if a bill like this would pass somebody would react and stop them from fishing in Brazil. It doesn't affect the treaty at all. Mr. UTZ. Senator, we had a give-and-take situation getting into the Brazilian treaty. One is, they claimed 200 miles and we refused to recognize it. That was the only bargaining basis we had when go- ing to the table with the Brazilians. If you remove that, what do we have to say to the Brazilians? What do we negotiate about? The CHAIRMAN. You have already negotiated, you said. You have a treaty. Mr. UTz. It expires the 30th day of June 1974. The CumrimAN. Well, you can renegotiate. Mr. UTZ. With what? What do we have to negotiate with if you tell me the United States claims 200 miles? The CHAIRMAN. Well, you can negotiate on your traditional fish- ing rights. You can still do that. Mr. UTZ. Then is 200 miles going to keep the Russians out of our waters because they have traditional fishing rights? The CHAIRMAN. We are not bothering Brazil at all. Mr. UTZ. But don't we have exactly the same point there? The CHAIRMAN. No. Mr. UTZ. How can we force the Russians out if they come in and claim because of traditional fishing rights the 200 miles doesn't apply? The. CHAIRMAN. You are just assuming a lot of things. Mr. UTz. We are assuming a 200-mile protective boundary is going to keep all the people out. The CHAIRMAN. Go ahead. Mr. UTZ. That brings me to the very point I was trying to make, Senator? The CHAIRMAN. But I am still trying to point out: How many shrimp fishermen. fish off the coast of Brazil? You said none. Mr. UTZ. NO, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Didn't you say none? Mr. UTZ. No, sir. We misunderstood your question. We understood it to be how many of these U.S. coastal fishermen go beyond 200 miles of our own territory. And they don't. The CHAIRMAN. Well, how many American shrimp fishermen fish off the coast of Brazil for shrimp? Mr. UTz. We have roughly 200 license applications under the Brazilian treaty. The CHAIRMAN. How many do as a practical matter? Mr. UTZ. 200. The CHAIRMAN. 200? Mr. UTZ. Yes, sir, 200 boats. 36700-74---pt. 5--14 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP751300380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP751300380R000500410005-1 664 The CHAIRMAN. That's what I wanted. Go ahead. And we should have the record of how many shrimp fishermen, U.S. shrimp fishermen, fish off other coasts. We don't need Mexico because we have all those figures. Mr. UT.7.. We'll get all the figures. The CitimumAN. Yes, the latest figures. All right, go ahead. Mr. UTZ. In conclusion, Senator, we do not feel this legislation will give the protection that is needed. The, CHAIRMAN. All right. Now, you make a statement that a law is of no value unless it can be enforced. Well, of course it isn't Mr. UTz. That is true. The CHAIRMAN. Yes. But we will have no trouble enforcing the law. 'We'll just add a little more to the Coast Guard appropriations and it will be enforced Mr. ITTz. According to your legislation, Senator, $1 million is the total amount that can be appropriated in a fiscal year. The CHAIRMAN'. I just said we'll have no trouble enforcing the law if we get it passed, any more than Ecuador has any trouble in en- forcing its 200-mile limit, or Peru. We send a few Coast Guard cut- ters out there and that takes care of it. They need a little appropriation. The Senator from Alaska and I happen to handle that appropriation in the Senate, so they'll get it. Now, does anybody have any questions? [No response.] [The following information was subsequently received for the record :] Senator WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Chairman, Renate Commerce Committee, Old Senate 9.11lee Building, Washington? D.C. STEELE & 17TZ, Waskington, D.C., May 22, 1074. Mr I MAR SENATOR. NIAGNUSON : During the hearings recently held on S. 1955, you requested information as to the number of. shrimp vessels that are fishing off foreign coftts and out of Tit.S, ports off foreign coasts. Further, you were in- terested in the amount of shrimp catch in those areas that would be considered international waters and beyond a perimeter 200 miles off our coast. am enclosing correspondence from the National Marine Fisheries Service which provides the mos,t accurate figures we have to date. While the catch sta- tistics are reasonably accurate, it is diffieult to pinpoint where the boat opera- tors spend their working hours and the amOunt of catch they bring in from a given area. Part of this difficulty results from the fishermen's reluctance to identify his Lest shrimping areas. T belie-Ye, however, that the statistics in pounds and dollars as set forth by the Nati()nal Marine Fisheries Service, will be beneficial in reflecting the importance of the distant-water shrimp industry, both in percentage of catch and dollar value, upon the individuals and aref s of the U.S. involved, As you clearly see, the value of the distant-water shrimp catch is in excess of one-fifth the total s7trimp value for the entire U.S. hoNA these stafi:tIcs will assist you in understanding the deep concern exhibited by the members of the National Shrimp Congress and the American Shrimpboat Association over the possibility of enacting an extended fis.iing zone. We are at present actively working with other segments of the American Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 665 fishing industry in an effort to find a workable solution to the problems they face, a solution that will not seriously damage other segments of the American fishing industry. We appreciate your long and continuing interest in the American fishing in- dustry as a whole, and if we can be of further assistance to you, please feel free to call upon us. With best wishes, I am, Sincerely, Enclosure. WILLIAM NELSON TJTZ, Rwecutive Director, National Shrimp Congress. U.S. DEPARTMENT OP COMMERCE, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE, Washington, D.C., May 17, 1974. Mr. WILLIAM UTE, Steele ff Utz, Washington, D.C. DEAR BILL-: You asked that I provide you data on the number of 'U.S. tuna and shrimp vessels that fish off foreign coasts and the U.S. shrimp catch off foreign coasts. There are approximately 136 such tuna vessels. With regard to shrimp ves- sels there are about 200 that fish out of and land their catches at foreign ports in the Caribbean area. There are about 900 shrimp vessels, working out of the United States that average about 13 percent of the year fishing off foreign coasts, primarily Mexico. Very few of these boats spend a majority of their time off foreign coasts. Gulf and Caribbean shrimp catches off the U.S. and foreign coasts by U.S. shrimp vessels in 1973 were: Thousand pounds Thousand pounds Off United States and landed at U.S. ports: 0-12 miles from shore 93, 969 $71, 868 Beyond 12 miles 71, 405 82, 277 Total off United States 165, 374 154, 145 Off foreign coasts and landed at U.S. ports 16, 695 18, 816 Off foreign coasts and landed at foreign ports 20, 731 21, 887 Total off foreign coasts 37, 426 40, 703 Tata I catch 202,880 194,848 It is my understanding that the majority of shrimp catches landed at for- eign ports by U.S. vessels enter the United States as imports. If I can provide further assistance, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, B. G. THOMPSON, Acting Chief, Statistics and Market News Division. The CHAIRMAN. Do you want to hear from these other two, Ted? These are the shrimp people. Senator STEVENS. Whatever you say. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Mauermann, do you want to add anything to this? We will put your statement in the record in full. Mr. MAutiMMANN. Yes. The CHAnimAx. Why don't you go ahead and give it to us. Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 666 STATEMENT OF ROBERT G. MAUERMANN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, TEXAS SHRIMP ASSOCIATION Mr. MAITERmANN. Mr. Chairman, my name is Robert G. Mauer- mann and I am the executive director of the Texas Shrimp Associa- tion and the Shrimp Association of the Americas. The Texas Shrimp Association is the oldest trade association representing the gulf shrimp industry and speaks for a fishery with landings in 1973 of 51.4 million pounds of shrimp with a dockside value of $87.5 million. The city of Brownsville, Tex. is a city where everyone in the com- munity is directly or indirectly affected in an economic way by the shrimp industry. It is that community's No. 1 industry. That is also true of Port Isabel, Port, Mansfield, and Aransas Pass, that it is their most important industry. Rockport, Freeport, and Galveston are also major shrimp ports where mach of the population is directly de- pendent on this industry. The Texas gulf shrimp industry is divided into two major groups, the distant-water fishery and the fishery off the Texas coast. The distant-water shrimp fishery fishes not only off the Texas coast but ofi" the coasts of other countries bordering on the Gulf of Mexico in international waters. At certain times of the year, 30 percent of the 1.000 Texas-based boats fish in international waters off the coast of Mexico. In fact, the shrimp fishery off the coast of Mexico was de- veloped by American fishermen based on the concept that this re- source was available in international waters to any fisherman with the courage and capability of harvesting this valuable marine resource. S. 1988, the Interim Fisheries Zone Extension and Management Act of 1973, would, on an interim basis, extend the U.S. contiguous fisheries zone, from its present width of 9 miles beyond our 3-mile territorial sea to a width of 197 miles beyond the territorial sea. The hill also provides or the extension of U.S. jurisdiction over anad- rmnous fish of U.S. origin to the full limit of their migratory range in the oceans, except within the, territorial waters or fisheries zone of another country. For the past 3 years, the United States has actively participated in preparatimy negotiations for the U. N. Law of the Sea Conference and has established our fisheries position in that forum. The U.S. position is based on a species management concept which in effect gives the coastal States much greater control over coastal stocks and provides for host State management jurisdiction and preferential harvest rights over anadromous species. The IT.S. position further provides for the management of highly migratory species by international conventions. This position was developed_ over a period of several years as a result of frequent con- ferences between representatives of the U.S. State Department a:ad representatives of the, various segments of the fishing industry. The unilateral extension by the United States of its fishery juris- diction, even on an interim basis, is contrary to established interna- tional law. Not only is it the view of the United States, but also other major maritime powers, that under existing international law no State has the right unilaterally to extend its fishery jurisdiction more than 19 miles from its coast. Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/09 : CIA7RDP75B00380R000500410005-1 Although certain coastal States have unilaterally extended their fishery jurisdiction beyond the recognized 12 miles we do not recog- nize such claims nor do most of the world's other maritime powers. It would appear, therefore, that such unilateral action by the United States would greatly reduce the opportunity of establishing a new. regime for international fisheries through international agreement. W are further of the opinion that the unilateral extension by the United States of its fishery jurisdiction as provided for in S. 1988 would be enforceable only if acceptable to other maritime powers, includinv, those now fishing between 12 and 200 miles off the coast of the United States. These nations whose vessels now fish in this area are not likely to recognize this claim to an exclusive 200-mile- fishery zone anymore than the United States recognizes similar claims made unilaterally by other coastal StateS. It is highly unlikely that these foreign-flag vessels would quietly haul in their fishing gear and re- turn to their own waters simply because we object to their competing - with American fishermen in waters recognized by the world com- munity as international waters. In summary, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, we are in complete sympathy with the objectives of S. 1988, however, we do not feel that this legislation at this time can possibly accomplish these objectives for the reasons I have outlined. It is our further be- lief that enactment of this legislation would immediately precipitate similar action by the Republic of Mexico thereby denying the gulf shrimp industry Et major portion of their traditional shrimping waters. The CHAIRMAN. Now, there is a good example of what we are talking about here. We had to fight like the devil to get 12 miles for fisheries. Now, we used 12 miles as a figure. Mr. MAUERMANN. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. And kept the 3 miles for navigation and maritime purposes, territorial waters. Mr. MAUERMANN. Right. Tile CHAIRMAN. Twelve miles then looked like it might do some- thing. We wanted 20, 25. Mr. MAUERMANN. Well, it was generally accepted by The CHAIRMAN. It's sort of a relative matter whether it's 10, 12, 15, or 25. We found that 12 miles is not enough for us on the Pacific - Coast and the Atlantic Coast. Now, I don't say there is any magic in the 200-mile figure. That was chosen because others had established it. The best way to do this would be to adopt a line according to the slope of the ocean. In some places it might be .50 and some places it may be 20?not a straight line. But we did move it from 3 to 12. Mr. MAUERMANN. That is correct. The CHAIRMAN. Nobody complained. We talked only about coas- tal zones and coastal zone management now has taken effect. I don't know?take the continental shelves. They vary so much. In Alaska the Continental Shelf of the Bering Sea goes almost to Russia, doesn't it? Senator STEVENS. It does. Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 668 The CumumAN. This is the problem we have. Maybe if we got 50 miles in some cases we would have been all right. But we are not. And our problem is that our stocks are just going down, down, down. Mr. MAufamANN. All of us recognize that, Senator. The CHAIRMAN. This is the worst salmon year we have had in something like 40 years. And they are way out at sea. And we have that treaty with japan, sure. They can get out of it if they want to now, after 10 years. And they don't practice much conservation; they never did. As a matter of fact, the proof of that pudding is that 70 to 100 years ago the greatest fishing grounds in the world were around the Japanese Islands. They are gone--nothing. That is why they are out penetrating evempla.ce else. And this is one of the broad questions that we have to think about. I suppose conservation in the shrimp field is a serious problem, too. Mr. MArinumANN. Of course it is. The CHAIRMAN. And you are right.. For 3 years we have been work- ing on a preparatory statement-3 years. And as long as we delay, these countries think that's fine; they go on fishing. The foreign fish- ing fleet catch off New England has gone up nine times in 10 years, and ours has gone down. Off those French islands, there is :no commercial tuna left in the Atlantic. no you know why? We never conserved our tuna. And the Pacific is going the same way. If we had a lot of international fish agreements, that would be the fine way to do it. They can be enforced. You read about the excep- tion once in a. while, the exception to the rule, the deliberate excep- tion, drifting over the line or something. But they can be enforced. So we are not going to have any fish any place if this situation is allowed to (out ii rue. Senator STtivExs. Mr. Chairma.u, may I ask a question'? The ( lIAIRMAN. Yes. Senator STEVENS. You have bilateral arrangements that protect the shrirnp industry today? Mr. MAmanviAxx. Only with Brazil, Senator Stevens. The CHAIRMAN. And they claire Mexico is talking about it. TVIr. MAtTrumANN. We had a re,ciprocal arrangement with Mexico where we were permitted to fish between 3 and 12 miles, and Mexico in tern fished off our coast between '3 and 12 mites. That treaty ex- pired last year. Senator STEVENS. I recognize your 'position and ask you a question: What do you think we could do to protect the fisheries areas that are in disagreement with you and the tuna people? We have, for instance, a billion pounds of Alaska pollock taken out of the Bering Sea in 1 year. We have more Pribilof fur seals floating ashore dead as i hey come in to reproduce than we used to harvest. They have died of malnutrition. We now have two halibut boats left in the total Canadian and U.S. fleet fishing for halibut in the Bering Sea?and there used to be hundreds. Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/0087 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Now, you have protection, I think. You people, I think, if you are going to object to this legislation ought to tell us how you think we could protect these people who don't have protection. Mr. MAUERMANN. Well, Senator, at this point I think we are very close to the meeting in Caracas. I would not like to see our Govern- ment or the Senate take any action of this nature. until after the Caracas meeting. Let's see whether or not something can't be devel- oped there that would afford the protection that all the fisheries need in this country. And let me assure you that the shrimp industry is completely sym- pathetic with the objectives of the legislation that you propose. We simply do not believe that unless it is accepted by the other world powers it is enforceable and will accomplish those objectives. Senator STEVENS. Well, we can enforce it. Again, I think if that is your assumption, we want to disabuse you of it. Because those foreign fishing fleets want to come in that 200-mile limit Mr. MAUERMANN. Yes, they do. Senator STEVENS. And as long as they do, we are going to have some leverage over them for a change. Mr. MAUERMANN. How are you going to keep them out, Senator, unless the world community recognizes that as our waters or fishing zone? Senator STEVENS. I go back to the time when we had guts and seized their vessels and burned them. It went to the high court, if you remember. It is just whether the United States has guts enough to enforce its laws, and we believe we do. We are beefing up the Coast Guard up my way, and intend to enforce it. Mr. MATJERMANN. I am not sure I share your optimism. Why didn't we enforce our position off the coast of South America? Those were international waters. We called them pirates and that sort of thing. but in the end passed an act that paid them for the seizure of tuna boats ? in what the world community recognized as international waters. - - The CHAIRMAN. They enforce it pretty well: Mr. MAUERIIIANN. They do, but we didn't enforce our claim. The CrimamAN. They don't like to get caught down there. They go in sometimes thinking they'll get away with it, and no one has been more active than myself in helping them. The Senator from Alaska and I are authoring a bill to repay them for the fines. Mr. MAUERMANN. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. We have to do something, and I want to disabuse the mind of anybody in this room; the bill does not affect any present treaties. And if it does, we'll put the language in to make it loud and clear that it doesn't. Second, it does not affect anyone making treaties within -the 200- mile zone like you did with Brazil. That could be done with anybody. We can do it with any country. Mr. MAuErimAxx. Well, we are, of course,- in the Gulf of Mexico, concerned The CHAIRMAN. And if it isn't there, we'll make. that clear. The bill is a working paper anyway. Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : ClitRDP75600380R000500410005-1 And then. setondly, there is no use of any of us belaboring the argument. The State Department contends they are better off without this. Some of us contend that that would be a good club for them to have. And there are many of them down there that feel that way. They have come up here on occasion and asked me to introduce bills to strengthen their hand. And then the last problem is that there is no question that we have waited and waited and waited until fisheries have disappeared or are gone. The halibut stocks will be years recovering. If that happened to you shrimp 'people, you'd be. up here doing some screaming, wouldn't you? 111..?unniu-Axx. We are afraid it's likely to happen to us, 'and that is why we are here screaming now. The CHAIRMAN. It's a. different viepoint. Mr. MAITEniu.ANN. It's a different viepoint, that is true. But I do represent the shrimp industry and it is my responsibility to make our viewpoint. known to you, and we are very concerned that if this legis- lation is passed, Mexico will immediately do the same, thing, and therefore deny a major segment of our industry their traditional fish- ing waters off the coast of Mexico. The CHAIRMAN. That may be the very thing that will bring you together, drastic action on both sides. Senator STEVENS. Would you pursue that a little bit. Suppose. they did set up a 200-mile limit as we are. We are not saying we are go- ing to exclude foreign fishing completely. We are saying we are going to regulate conservation within a 200-mile zone. If they start regulating conservation practices within a 200-mile zone, you would be protected as well as anybody eise as far as the shrimp off Mexico is concerned. wouldn't you? If the action is taken to perpetuate the species that your people fish for?this is all we are asking. We have two species which have disappeared from the North Pacific and Bering Sea off Alaska the last 5 years?just fished out. There were more halibut caught by the foreign pollock fishing fleet than Our people caught intentionally. And we have supposedly got bilateral treaties to protect th.e halibut. Mr. MAunnuANN. Why don't we make those treaties work, Senator? Why don't we enforce them? Senator S'imvEys. We are enforcing them. But we have no treaties on pollock-. How is it going to hurt you in terms of the shrimp fishing industry if there are sound management principles applied to the shrimp fish- ing zones of Mexico? Mr. MnicloamANN. If there, were Sound principles applied and we were authorized to continue our traditional fishery, we wouldn't be hurt. but T. do not believe this to be the case. Again I am making some assumptions there, but based on what the Mexicans have told me. Shrimp, within Mexican fishing law, is re- served in Mexican fishing waters for Mexicans, and there are no permits issued for shrimp fishing to any foreign nationals at all. Now, if they extend that fishing zone, we are assuming that the Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/09497j : CIA-RDP751300380R000500410005-1 present fisheries law claiming total control over shrimp would be in effect. The CHAIRMAN. Well, all of this is assumption. Mr. MAUERMANN. These 4tre not all assumptions Those are Mexican statutes. The CHAIRMAN. These are assumptions, and we direct in the bill, that the Secretary of State initiate negotiations with foreign gov- ernments Mr. MAUERMANN. I know this. The CHAIRMAN [continuing]. Within the 200 miles. We have 2 pages of that. Mr. MAUERMANN. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. And we specifically say?quoting from section 11: Nothing contained in this act shall be construed to abrogate any treaty or convention to which the United States is a party on the date of the bill. And 2 pages of the bill is to direct them to make negotiations for conservation within a 200-mile or 100-mile limit, or whatever it may be. Mr. MAUERMANN. Well, quite frankly, I think our position of nego- tiating with Mexico on an arrangement to continue our fishing off their coast would be-- The CHAIRMAN. We just have a 'different view on it. Mr. MAUERMANN. We have a different view. The CHAIRMAN. We get no action down at the State Department. They tell you to wait and wait and wait. We've been 3 years in pre- conferences and we just can't go on this way. Mr. MAummANN. Well, the time is very short, Senator, between now and the Caracas meeting. Surely we can wait that long. Senator STEVENS. But the time between now and the adoption of an international agreement is -quite a long way. I think you would agree with that. MAUERMANN. Yes. Senator STEVENS. Let me ask you one last question: What if Mexico put into effect the species approach that is sought by the United States in the Law of the Sea Conference? What if they did it uni- laterally today? You say you support the species approach. Mr. MAUERMANN. Yes, sir. Senator STEVEN'S. It would do more for you than the 200 miles. Mr. MAUERMANN. NO. Senator STEVENS. It gives them the priority for national interest first, doesn't it? Mr. MAUERMANN. Yes. Senator STEVENS. That is what you object to here. So in the Law of the Sea conference, the same thing would happen to the shrimp peo- ple as under the 200-mile limit. Mr. MAUERMANN. There is no question shrimp are going to get hurt any way you look at it. Senator STEVENS. Shrimp aren't going to get hurt. They may stay on the face of the Earth if we get something done in the next year Or SO. Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : WRDP75B00380R000500410005-1 Mr. MA LIERMANN. Well, I don't think that you can say under the present fishing system that we are depleting the source of shrimp. The C ILA IRMA N. Your general position is: Just leave everything alone as it is. Is that right? Mr. NI AITERMANN. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. And you speak for the shrimp people? Mr. AIX:TERM-ANN. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. What if we exempted shrimp? Would you support the bill then? Mr. MATJEumANN. I would have to go back and discuss this .with some of my industry leaders. The CutammAx. You'd have to go back to the drawing board? Mr. MAITERMANN. I guess I would. The CHAIRMAN. We have the same situation with King crab. Our Dungeness crab is going down. If this was happening to you people, I'm telling you you'd be up here waiting to get in that door. And I know that you feel some responsibility for overall conserva- tion of marine fife. Mr. M AITERMANN. Of course we do. The CHAIRMAN. Because that affects you indirectly. Mr. MA-HERMANN-. I know. The CumumAx. All right, we must proceed to the next witness. Mr. :MA unamAxx. Thank you. The thburcuAx. Who is next? Jack Sahlman? Mr. SATILMAN. Yes, sir. The Ci IA HEIMAN. I would be glad to hear from you. STATEMENT OF C. W. SAHLMAN, ON BEHALF OF SAHLMAN SEA- FOODS, THE AMERICAN SIERIMPBOAT ASSOCIATION, AND THE SOUTHEASTERN FISHERIES ASSOCIATION Mr. SA I ILMAN. Mr. Chairman and members of the Senate Com- merce Committee, my name is C. W. Sahlman. I am speaking here today on behalf of three separate entities: Sahlman Seafoods, the American Shrimpboat Association, and the Southeastern Fisheries Association. Said man Seafoods, Inc. is my own business out of Tampa, Fla. We personally operate a fleet of shrimp trawlers which fish in interim- tional waters off the South American coast, primarily Guyana, Suri- nam, and Brazil. The American Shrimpboat Association is a trade association which has as its membership those American fishing operators who are presently engaged in shrimp fishing off the boundaries of other nations. Third, 1 speak as president. of the Southeastern Fisheries Asso- ciation. This association represents fishermen of all species from the States of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina. 'I7he position I am taking today and the statements I make are con- sistent with the thinking of my company, the membership of the American Shrimpboat Association, and the membership of the South- eastern Fisheries Association. Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/0%9X : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Your bill, S. 1988, ostensibly would take unilateral interim action pending the Law of the Sea Conference to establish a -contiguous fish- ing zone beyond our national jurisdiction. That contiguous zone would provide an additional 197 miles, or a total 200-mile fishing boundary around the shoreline of the United States. Gentlemen, I and all whom I represent here today oppose this legis- lation. It is argued by many in the New England area of the United States and in some quarters of the Northwest Pacific that such legis- lation would be a godsend; it would be the cure-all for their fishing industry ills. I totally disagree with that belief and the comments that they have expressed to support that false hope. It would not be a cure-all for their particular problems. It would, however, be a devastating blow to a large part of the American fishing industry, in particular, America's highest value producer, the shrimp industry. Mr. Chairman, one of the reasons why we have not had this prob- lem in the Gulf of Mexico is that the shrimp industry is one which is probably similar in many ways in efficiency to the tuna industry. We are one of the most efficient fisheries in the United States. There have been exploratory vessels in the Gulf from Poland, Japan, Russia, Cuba, and other nations. They have not put any sig- nificant number of vessels in the Gulf because our fleets are more efficient than their fleets. And I say that one of the problems in New England in particu- lar?I just came back from that area last week?is that it looks like a fishing museum if you look at those boats up there. I question whether if no one were off the coast of New England these boats could make any money, whether they could catch the fish. . We are at present engaged in fishing off South America. There have in the past been serious conflicts between some South American countries and ourselves concerning Our right to fish in what we con- sider international waters. We are fishing in those waters for shrimp that in fact are not being caught by the coastal nation closest to these shrimp grounds. Those nations neither have the capacity nor the inclination to advance to the capacity to catch the existing shrimp crops that are produced there annually. At the moment we have an ongoing treaty with Brazil. This treaty was worked out approximately 2 years ago- after long and difficult negotiations. It is a very workable treaty; it has workeed. for the past 2 years on a purely voluntary basis inasmuch as the enabling legis- lation was not completed by the Congress and signed by the President ? until the very end of 1973. That treaty's provisions have now been extended through June 30, 1974, and in the very near future we hope to engage in negotiations with the Brazilians to extend this treaty on long-range basis. For a moment, gentlemen, let's examine the people and the indus- try I represent. Who are they? And how would they be affected by this legislation? The American Shrimpboat Association is comprised- of the distant, water shrimp fleet. According to the National Marine Fisheries Serv- ice statistics for 1973, the Oral dollar value of the U.S. distant-water shrimp catches at ex-vessel prices was $10,703,000 or, in round fig- Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 674 ures, $41 million. The total shrimp value in the U.S. in 1973 was V41,307,000. As you see, our distant-water shrimp catch approximates one-sixth of the total U.S. shrimp landings. Of those total U.S. shrimp land- ings, over one-half was caught. in the gulf. Or, viewed in another way, we catch in distant waters shrimp valued at over one-fourth the dollar value of all shrimp that is caught in the entire gulf. Additionally, I am here today to represent the Southeastern Fish- eries Assoc.iation which encompasses those fishermen fishing within the gulf. Where are we if S. 1988 becomes law in the United States? Most assuredly, Mexico's first reaction would be to claim a 200-mile fishing zone. I will not go into that and discuss it. I do want to touch again on the problem if we do lose these areas off the coast of other countries, that all of these vessels would have no alternative but to return to the gulf. And there is already fishing pressure in the gulf?not foreign, domestic. The shrimp industry is very efficient at harvesting the crop, and we don't think there is ad- ditional capacity to take care of anywhere from 300 to 400 boats. Senator STEVENS. We would welcome you in Alaska, as we did the New Bed ford scallop fleet. You could take some of the crab the Japa- nese got, for an increase from 28 million pounds in 1954 to 5 billion pounds in 1971?we don't have the figures for '72 and '73 yet. But. we voiiJd be happy to have you, because we think you would live up to (mod conservation practices. You'll find the New Bedford fleet is very happy in Alaska. Your lieet would be very happy, too. Mr. SAIILMAN. I wish we. had that alternative. I'm afraid these shrimp vessels would be hopelessly lost. Senator STEvENs. Our shrimpers seem to get along well in the scallop areas, and fish in the. halibut and salmon and king crab sea- son. I think there is more up there on a sustained basis over the long haul than you believe. We recognize the value of your fishery. But what would you do if you were fishing uo there off our shores? The CHAIRMAN. They don't, care about that. Mr. SA LIMAN. We do care about that. But we. don't believe--and admit this is base I on assumption?we don't believe this will solve those problems. My trip to Boston and the surrounding areas last week was like going into a fishery museum. They don't have the equipment. They haven't had. it for years up there to go out and harvest that crop. Senator STEVENS. Why ? MT. SM ILMAN. I don't know why. Senator STEVENS. Would you expand your equipment when you are running an 80-foot boat against, a 200-foot trawler? When von see some. of the, equipment they are competing wifh? the Japanese come in with monofilament nets and all kinds of equip- ment we won't, let our fishermen use. You would not improve your boat if you were ruunincr a boat up there. under those circumstarp,es. You'd do what the halil;ut fleet in Seattle has done. You'd stay home. There are two out this year. Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/09t0A : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 And I have the figures here. They had 104 vessels in the last good year, which was 1963, and caught 11 million pounds of halibut. There are two up there this year. That is just the Bering Sea alone. And the Japanese, as I said, incidental to the catch of their 4 bil- lion pounds of fish, caught 11 million pounds of halibut. They caught last year what we did at the peak of our effort?the Canadian and United States effort in the Bering Sea. Our catch of 1963 was 11 million pounds of halibut. Mr. SAIILMAN. Senator, I will say again that we recognize there is a serious problem. I am not as familiar with ,the northewest be- cause I haven't been over there. We do think something has to be done. But what we are telling you is that this would have a devastating effect on the shrimp industry, which is a successful industry, and there has to be a better way of doing it. And one more thing. The New England fishery?the equipment out there was obsolete years before the foreign fishing fleets came along. The CHAIRMAN. I don't see how it could have a devastating effect at all. You would be the same as you were. You agree that the bill doesn't affect present treaties, don't you? Mr. SAHLIVIAN. Well, the present treaty off Brazil in particular-- The CHAIRMAN. Do you agree with that or not? Mr. SAIILMAN. No, sir, I don't agree. The CHAIRMAN. It says, "Nothing in this bill shall be construed to abrogate any treaty or convention." Mr. SAHLIVIAN. But what would we have to negotiate? The CHAIRMAN. Does it say that? Can you read that? Have you read the bill? Mr. SAHLMAN. But we know this is so. The CHAIRMAN. And then for two pages we direct the Secretary of State to go on and negotiate. And we think the 200-mile limit wouldn't affect those negotiations at all. I don't see why it should. Mr. SAIILMAN. Why can't the Secretary of State go to the Japa- nese and get tough with them and say, "This is what you are going to do"? The CHAnarAx. I say I don't think it would affect it at all. I think it would be helpful. When you play the game for 16 years and don't score a run, it's about time you had some new tactics, don't you think so? Mr. SAHLMAN. But I think they can get tough on a unilateral basis with these nations. The CHAIRMAN. Get a new quarterback or something. Mr. SAIILMAN. We must have some leverage with Japan. The CHAIRMAN. I think you are unreasonable to suggest that this bill would affect any existing treaty. I don't know who's -frightened you, but I don't think it would affect the negotiations because we sup- port this strongly in this bill. We encourage it; we back it up. We direct them to make negotiations within any limit that might be prescribed. That has never been in law before. That has only been done by the treaties. Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 1,76 Now, that presents two different points of view. Mr. UTZ. Senator, who is going to tell the Mexicans and the Brazil- ians to negotiate? The enmami,N. Well, I'm not a Brazilian or Mexican. Mr. UTZ. That is very true, Senator, and that's the whole point. The CnAramAN. rm. an American and I am trying to take care of American fisheries. Mr. ITrz. But somebody is assuming they will come to the table and talk to us, and we won't have anything to talk about once you pass this kind of legislation. The CHAIRMAN. All right. SAHLAI A-N. Senator, 1 would like to read the portion. The CHAIRMAN. We have to go on here. We have a long list of witnesses. Mr. SAHLATAN. All right, sir. The CHAIRMAN. I don't think this would happen to you. I would be the first to protect the industry. I think you're seeing ghosts.. Mr. f'AIII.ATAIN". Well, there an an awful lot of people in the in- dustry that see them. The CHAIR:NIA-N. Well, I understand that. Mr. SATILMA N. One industry I want to touch on which has not been intentioned is the spinney lobster industry based in Florida. This is not the lobster with the claws, as you know. It is peculiar to warm waters. This industry had a value in 1913 of approximately $12 million, almost one-third of the New England fishing lobster industry. The CHATRALVN. They are the ones without claws, aren't they? Mr. UTz. Yes. Mr. SAHLMAN. The spiney lobster industry, while based primarily in Florida, takes almost half, a critical portion, of its catch in distant waters beyond the 12-mile territorial limit, off Caribbean nations, which are not .A all pleased by this competitive fishing?Caribbean nations which, fortunately, are eHither unaware of or have not to date decided to follow the U.S. unilateral act and likewise declare spiney lobster a creature of the Contineatal Shelf. am referring to an amendment which went in on the Brazilian treaty bill which declared the northern lobster a creature of the Shelf. The C HATT:MAN. That's right. TIsmk you ad very muc:A. We must proceed and if you want to add anything, the record will be opeli a little, while. We. want to get those figures. t still am not clear. r. UTz. Ye., sir. 1 will get those to you. The Cm A !RATAN. Thank you. The balance of the statement follows:] STATE:o E NT OF C W. SAHLI\ S AI TLATAN SEAFOODS, AMERICAN S TERI MPBOAT A StifY ;TATION, AND SOUTHEASTERN FISHERIES ASSOCIATION The preamble o that Treaty spell: out that Brazil recognizes in its consti- tution a territorial sea extending 200 miles off its coastline. Anything and everything within 200 miles off Brazil's coastline is its property. The U.S. stated in those negotiations, and has spelled out in the Treaty, that this coun- Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/09/077 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 67 try does not recogniZe 200 miles. Both countries, however, agreed there was a need for a conservation regime in order that the shrimp in that area of the high seas be conserved and not over-exploited. We agreed to establishing a con- servation zone and limiting the fishing season and the amount of catch effort, by number of boats, that would be exercised in the area. That Treaty is an . interim 'agreement pending the outcome of the Law of the Sea. Should the U.S. Senate determine to enact legislation that would provide for a 200 mile fishing zone off the coast of the U.S., it will be virtually impossible for us to negotiate an extension of that agreement within the realm of reason for the U.S. fishermen, or to negotiate any multi-national agreements at the Law of the Sea conference that would protect the high seas shrimp fishermen. Why do I say this? Because the U.S. industry and government negotiators go- ing to Brazil or the Law of the Sea -conference will be usurped by the Senate. Regardless of how you phrase your legislation, you will have convinced those other countries that the U.S. will approve of any other country claiming 200 miles. For a moment, gentlemen, let's examine the people and the industry I rep- resent. Who are they? And how would they be affected by this legislation? The American Shrimpboat Association is comprised of the distant water shrimp fleet. According to the National Marine Fisheries Service statistics for 1973, the dollar value of the U.S. distant water shrimp catches at ex-vessel prices was $40,703,000 or, in round figures, $41 million. The total shrimp value in the U.S. in 1973 was $241,307,000. As you see, our distant-water shrimp catch ap- proximates one-sixth of the total U.S. shrimp landings. Of those total U.S. shrimp landings, over one half was caught in the Gulf. Or, viewed in another way, we catch in distant waters shrimp valued at over one-fourth the dollar value of all shrimp that is caught in the entire Gulf. Additionally I am here today to represent the Southeastern Fisheries Associa- tion which encompasses those fishermen fishing within the Gulf. Where are we if S.1988 becomes law in the U.S.? Most assuredly, Mexico's first reaction would be to claim a 200-mile fishing zone just like her northern neighbor. That would, for all practical purposes, completely close the Gulf of Mexico. Brazil already claims 200 miles thus, in the absence of any agreement, we are totally removed from our fishing grounds. A $41 million a year industry at the vessel level is wiped out. In that event, we have only two alternatives. One alternative is to face those nations such as Brazil, and Mexico, across the bargaining table and to work out some agreement under which we would be allowed to come in and fish for? and might I say with every heavy emphasis?their shrimp?they would in ef- fect, be sitting as sellers of a commodity, and we in effect would be buyers of an opportunity to collect their commodity. The chances of our negotiating any agreement that would not totally deplete the profit margin that presently justi- fies our being in the distant waters, is very unlikely. The probabilities are that we will be looking toward the second alternative. The Second alternative would be to return to the Gulf. Gentlemen, it does not take much imagination to recognize that should the boats and crews that capture $41 million of shrimp, approximately 26% of the value of the entire shrimp catch within the Gulf, is those crews and boats return to the Gulf in competition with the fishermen presently there, we would soon have a Gulf that would be drastically overfished, as much or more so than those in New England claim exists in their waters today. Fishing areas do not develop overnight. They are discovered and cultivated over long periods of time. Likewise they cannot be changed overnight, without having drastic and disastrous impact upon the economies of the areas which depend upon that fishing industry. 200 mile legislation by the U.S. would have a direct and disastrous impact upon the economies of the States of Florida and Texas, and indirect impacts throughout all the Gulf States. Gentlemen, I did not come here today just to present a negative attitude about your legislation. I applaud the interest exhibited by this Committee and its members. I am pleased there is a group of Congressmen and Senators who are interested in improving the fishing industry. I was very pleased to see the so-called Eastland Resolution so well received by the Senate and the House of Representatives. That Resolution, as you know, calls for immediate attention and the strongest possible support to upgrade and improve the fishing industry Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 678 of the U.S. As a follow-up to that legislation, it is my understanding that the Pacific, Atlantic, and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commissions are presently submitting: budgets to Senator :Eastland. Those budgets will be utilized as the basis for a total appropriation of $400,000 to conduct hearings throughout the entire 1:.S. coastal regions. These hearings will provide the fishermen them- selvea, the people directly involved in the industry, an opportunity to express exactly what they feel is necessary to improve and upgrade their industry, and to protect, conserve and fully utilize all the living resources of the sea. I applaud tiat effort. I think it is a step in the right direction. I have fully supported many, many efforts throughout the past years to support the total fishing industry. I have worked long and hard wf.tli my fellow members of the fishing industry in an effort to find those thinga which we all agree are universal problems facing the industry; problems which we could work in unisim to support. One panticular issue was our representation and posture at the Law of the Sea conference. This conference will officially begin in June of this year, in Caracas, Venezuela. The industry representation there and the position advanced there for the industry did not come easy. There have beer. many years and rattily meetings, a lot of time and great efforts on the part of the fishery associations and individual fishermen getting us to this point. Some years ago, representatives of every segment of the entire fishing industry met. After difficult and arguous sessions, and unbelievable comprises by ma:ay seg- ments of the industry, the approach and posture presently exhibited was agreed to and advanced as the official U.S. position on fisheries, commonly re- ferred to as the "Species Approach." The Species Approach was hammered out and was agreed to by each and every individual segment of the Araerican fishing industry. It was agreed they would support that position and would refrain from advancing or advocating unilateral action pending the outcome of the Law of the Sea conference. I, mind those I represent, agreed to support the Species Approach. I might add, that we have steadfastly done so. consistent with our agreement with the remainder of the industry. I would like to point out, however, that the Species Approach in its present form is fiat the very best approach for the distant water shrimp industry. It does, however, give us protection. It gives us adequate protection for what could be a limited period of time, provided it would be passed in its present form, and if it were enforced in the strictest sense. I speak here in reference to the full utilization concept that is part of the Species Approach. That concept provides M essence that the coastal State would have management responsibility over the coastal species and would have to make any species of the living resources off the coast available to international fishing wnerever the coastal State did not fully utilize the species. By virtue of that language, we would be permitted to continue fishing in those areas where we are pres- ently fishing, provided, however, that the coastal State did not upgrade and expand its fishing capacity for shrimp. Wherever the coastal State did begin to expand it; catch capability, we would have to diminish our catch accordingly and eventually could be completely removed from those fishing grounds where we presently operate. This, as you might recognize, was an industry com- promise wide], gave full protcction to the New England and Pacific coast fisheries under a Law of the Sea agreement containing such provisions, but provided us with a slow removal from mar operating grounds. We are not insensitive to the present situation which the Pacific Northwest and New England faces. However, we do feel any legislation should be reasoned and it should lie helpful in every respect, or at least in the vast majority of the 1,1On:trial interests. The 200 mile legislation does not provide this type of protection for either the New England fisherman or the Pacific Northwest fisherman, In my judgment, it h; both unenforcable as to attitude and capability. Yet it jet] pardizes a major segment of the American fishing industry, the dis- tant water shrimp industry. This Congress, has just recently passed a similar well-intentioned piece of legislation that, ia my judgment, will provide no assistance to those people for whom it was directed. I speak. specifically of the legislation to make the northern lobster a creature of the shelf. That legislation was directed to the New England lobster industry. It sought to assist the lobster industry, which according to Natonal Marine Fisheries Service statistics produced jn 1973 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/09M: CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 approximately $42 million for its fishermen. The lobster was declared a crea- ture of the shelf by unilateral legislative action on the part of the U.S., although the 1958 Continental Shelf Convention had specifically omitted the lobster. Furthermore, that Convention only by a tie-vote refrained from naming the shrimp a creature of the shelf. To date, I dare say not one lobster has been saved by that legislative effort for the New England lobstermen. I would venture to say that very little, if anything, will be done to enforce that legislative Act. But what has it done to other segments of the fishing industry? In the Southeastern U.S., is based a spiney lobster industry. Again, accord- ing to National Marine Fisheries Service statistics, in 1973, that industry brought into the U.S. approximately $12 million, almost one third of the New England fishing lobster industry. The spiney lobster industry, while based primarily in Florida, takes almost half, a critical portion, of its catch in distant waters beyond the 12 mile territorial limit, off Caribbean nations. Caribbean nations which are not at all pleased by this competitive fishing. Caribbean nations which fortunately are either unaware or have not to date decided to follow the U.S. unilateral act and likewise declare spiney lobster a creature of their continental shelf. They could so easily do it and drive into bankruptcy the vast majority of those fishermen presently involved in the Southeastern U.S. spiney lobster industry. Further, if the U.S., by legislative flat can declare the lobster a creature of the continental shelf, although con- trary to discussions and agreements of that Convention, who is to say to Mexico or Brazil that they cannot declare the shrimp a creature of the shelf by unilateral legislative enactment, especially in view of the extremely close vote that took place at that Convention? Gentlemen, as you can see, in a well-intentioned effort to protect a very small segment of the New England fishing industry, an effort that probably will come to nought; last year this Congress endangered $11,500,000 a year spiney lobster industry and a $41 million a year distant water shrimp industry. Somehow, to me, the risk of such inequities do not seem to be justified. As I stated, I have worked hard to aid and improve the shrimp industry and the American fishing industry as a whole. I want to help now. We can help if we look for approaches that pull together and strengthen the industry, and not divide it. Let's pull together and demand enforcement of existing laws and international agreements. We have in existence today treaties with foreign nations designed to protect the New England fisheries and the Pacific fisheries. If these treaties are ineffective then let's unite together, the fishing industry and the Congress, and seek to improve those agreements, seek to beef them up, seek to put realistic enforcement provisions within them. Then let's demand en- forcement of these agreements. Let's show to the world, by the enforcement of those agreements already in existence, that the U.S. is sincerely interested in protecting the American fishing industry. In conclusion, gentlemen, the actual results of this well-intentioned bill would be disastrous in three respects: (1) it would not in actual application answer the needs of the New England and Northwest Pacific fishing Industry; (2) it would definitely bring economic disaster to the distant water shrimp and Gulf coast fisheries; and (3) it would totally wipe out all possibility of achieving an international accord at the Law of the Sea conference. I say again, I applaud your interest and am pleased to have your support for the fishing industry. I can only hope the information I have provided, the views I have stated and the conclusions I have expressed on behalf of myself, the distant water shrimp industry, the Southeastern Fisheries Association, and all of its Gulf State members, have convinced you to abandon this specific legislative effort. Abandon this legislation. But, please do not lose your interest for the American fisherman and his industry. He needs your support. The whole industry needs your support for enforcement of existing laws and passage of legislation to upgrade the industry?provide us with goals we can pursue together as a united industry, not legislation that divides and damages us, both as individuals and as an industry. The CHAIRMAN. All right, Walt and Bill. Is Bill Saletic here? Mr. SALETIC. Yes. 36-709 0 - 74 - 15 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : gpti-RDP75B00380R000500410005-1 The CHAIRMAN. All right, Walt, you go ahead with your state- ment. It's only a short one. And, Bill, you have a short one, too, don't you? Go ahead. STATEM:ENT OF W. V. YONKER, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, ASSOCIATION OF PACIFIC FISHERIES Mr. YONKER. Mr. Chairman, I have a very short statement. I can shorten it some. You have the full statement. We appreciate the opportunity to appear before this committee to add to our original testimony in opposition to S. 1988, a Bill to ex- tend United States fisheries jurisdiction. I am appearing here today on behalf of the Association of Pacific Fisheries and th? Puget Sound Salmon Canners, Inc., whose inter- ests in this hearing were detailed in my statement on February 11, 1974. Today I am also appearing on behalf of the Columbia River Salmon and Tuna Packers Association who process in excess of 90 percent of the salmon caught by U.S. fishermen in southwestern Washington, northwestern Oregon, and from the Columbia River. In our testimony against this bill in Bellingham, Wash., on Febru- ary 11, 1974, we pointed out in some detail that this proposed uni- lateral extension of jurisdiction by the United States would: (1) Destroy the U.S. bargaining position for fisheries at the Caracas Law of the Sea Conference; (2) Cause the loss of our present protection from the Japanese high seas salmon fishery; (3) Open the northeastern Pacific to the exploitation of salmon by foreign nationals without regulation; and (4) Provide for the allocation of salmon to foreign nations with no assured allocation to this nation's fishermen. Today we would like to expand and clarify the statements we made in Bellingham regarding the adverse economic impact of S. 1983 on the salmon industry of Washington, Alaska, and Oregon. To point up one of our concerns, it should be noted that the salmon industry has been and will be the largest employer in Alaska and has been and will he, until the trans-Alaska Pipeline begins to produce, the largest taxpayer in Alaska. This industry is also very important to the, States of Washington and Oregon, particularly in terms of sup- port for smaller coastal communities that are without other extrac- tive industries. As we, have, pointed out earlier in this statement, S. 1988 provides very little protection for Pacific salmon. From 1963 through 1972, the United States has taken on an average approximately 58 million salmon a year. During this same period of time, the Japanese catch of United States salmon has been approximately 3.5 million fish, or 6 percent of this nation's catch. Had the, present Japanese fleet fished for this 10-year period in the northeastern Pacific Ocean outside of 200 miles, it could have taken some 15.5 million salmon annually, which would amount to 27 percent of the United States catch. These comparative data only reflect the effect of the Japanese ef- fort in this area and the additional entry of other fishing nations Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B00380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/09/%78i CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 who have a vital economic interest in high-value species such as sal- mon could destroy the industry's productivity or even wipe out runs of salmon. Mr. A. R. Fredin, of the National Marine Fisheries Serv- ice Northwest Fisheries Center and an internationally recognized scientist, has stated that he is not aware of a run of salmon that, during its life cycle, does not migrate more than 200 miles off the coast of its home nation. There are three fishery resources that would be placed in serious jeopardy if S. 1988 is enacted into law. These are the high seas shrimp and tuna fisheries and the Pacific salmon fishery. To illustrate this point, the National Marine Fisheries Service re- ported that in 1972 the total value of edible and nonedible fish landed by U.S. fishing craft and caught in United States waters interna- tional waters, and off foreign shores amounted to $765,000,000. Of this amount, salmon accounted for approximately $62,750,000, tuna taken outside of the 12-mile fishery zone accounted for approximately $119,000,000, and shrimp taken beyond this country's 12-mile fishery zone amounted to approximately $100,000,000. These three species had a total value of $281,750,000. These catches amount to 36.8 per- cent of the value of the total edible and nonedible fish taken by U.S. craft. The Service also reported for 1972 that the total value of fish im- ports into the United States amounted to $1,494,400,000, almost doub- ling the value of the U.S. catch. In the same year, the U.S. fish indus- try exported $157,900,000 worth of products. S. 1988, if enacted, would substantially reduce the salmon, shrimp, and tuna production of this country, which is not realistic in terms of the trade imbalance noted above, nor is it realistic to endanger those segments of the industry which produce 36 percent of the value of the total U.S. fish production. Also, it should be recognized that the probable loss of this nutritious food is not in the best interest of this country, particularly at this time. We recognize that the 200-mile provision in the proposed legisla- tion is a nonexclusive one as the proposal amends 80 Stat. 908. In this regard, we would then point out that foreign nations would con- tinue to have access to under-utilized species inside a 200-mile zone, and the problems of incidental catches would still be a matter of concern. Unilateral extension of jurisdiction brings two other problems be- fore us in considering this proposed legislation. In the first place, we have reservations concerning the effectiveness of unilateral extension of jurisdiction as a conservation measure be- cause foreign fleets would probably continue to fish inside of a 200- mile limit without penalty as there is no international law to sup- port such a jurisdictional claim. Second, since 1964 the United States has had a law which declares the creatures of our continental shelf to be the property of this na- tion. To the best of our knowledge, this law has not been enforced. Had it been, the United States would have been able to exercise con- trol over the tremendous incidental foreign catches of tanner and king crab in the eastern Bering Sea. These incidental catches have reached such a magnitude that they are having an adverse effect on Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 682 the management of our crab resources. If we had enforced this law against foreign drag operations in the area to protect our crab, we would, as a side effect, have protected our seriously endangered hali- but resources as halibut occurs in many of the same areas as do crab. Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the opportunity to appear before the committee and express our additional comments on this very impor- tant proposal. Thank you. The CHAIRMAN. Now, you and I have talked about this on many occasions, and Bill, too, so I don't need to ask many questions, or I don't want to. But I want to clear up one thing. On the first page of your testimony you come to a conclusion on which there is a disagreement, that it, would destroy our bargai:aing power at Caracas. Well, I mean that is the conclusion of several people. Mr. YONKER. Yes that is ray conclusion, sir. The CHAIRMAN. And I happen to disagree with that. Now, if this was just beginning, this international Law of the Sea Conference--if this was 15 years ago?I took the same position. be- fore we went to Geneva. But our problem is?and I don't like to be- labor this--we have gone on and on and on, and we never get any- place. Something drastic has got to be done. If this bill would move them in Caracas?sometimes it does, you know. Sometimes you can introduce a bill and get as much done as by passing it. You have it hanging there. Because many members of the State Department say, "Well, it might help us." There is a difference of opinion. So we won't go into that. Mr. YONKER. May I comment on that, sir? The CHAIR.MAN, Yes. Mr. YONKER. We have a position that was developed by the in- dustry, and it is the U.S. position of the Law of the Sea. If we go down there already having 200 miles as a matter of fact in our country, it's like playing poker when you are looking at the back of your hand and your opponent is looking at your cards; we have given our cards away. Up to this point we have been negotiating and I don't think every- body has been stating realistic positions. I think in Caracas we will start to see them for the first time. The CHAIRMAN. Well, I have had a long, sad experience with these conferences. With me it goes back 16 years, when I was a delegate in Geneva. Nothing was done. And I was hopeful they would do something after almost 2 years up in New York-2 long years, and they passed one resolution, to adjourn and go to Caracas. Now they are talking about, going to Vienna after Caracas?is that where they are going? They were going to Chile and now they are going to Vienna. I have an invitation to go there. And I don't know how long this can go on. That is one problem. Now, there is a difference of opinion about this, I understand. Now, the second one is, "cause the loss of our present protection from the Japanese high seas salmon fishery." Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/096% : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 You mean the Japanese treaty would be gone? Mr. YONKER. I think our action in going to 200 miles would result in the Japanese abrogation of the treaty. The Chairman. It is your opinion that they would act to do that? Mr. YONKER. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. And I just feel the contrary, that they wouldn't. I think they would keep it going. But that is speculation. Mr. YONKER. If they don't, then we still have them fishing for our resources up to 3 miles of our coast. The CHAIRMAN. You and I have dealt with the Japanese for a long time, and you know they don't do something that will hurt them economically, and, to coin a phrase, they have bigger fish to fry with this country. They aren't going to pick out this one thing because we protect our shores. I don't think so. Now, you say it will "open the northeastern Pacific to the exploi- tation of salmon by foreign nationals without regulation." Wouldn't that protect our salmon for 200 miles if we have a 200- mile limit? Mr. YONKER. If we have a 200-mile limit, sir, as I pointed out, the Japanese could move from the present 3.5 million fish they are catch- ing now to 15.5 million with the same fleet, if they moved into? The CHAIRMAN. For the record, the figures we have are that they are catching, as Ted points out, a lot of pollock within 200 miles which is valued at about $300 million. And they don't want to bar- gain about that. Wouldn't we have a chance to bargain with salmon over that $300 million they are taking? Mr. YONKER. It depends how much you want to trade off. The CHAIRMAN. We would direct them to bargain. Mr. YONKER. We have seen the East Germans, the Poles, moving in. We have others coming in. The CHAIRMAN. They wouldn't want to keep that catch. And the bill says we should negotiate that with them. Mr. YONKER. I understand. The CHAIRMAN. It directs the Secretary to do that. Mr. YONKER. I understand. The CHAIRMAN. And I assume the same would be true of many other species. Now, the rest of it I think we have discussed on many occasions, and I don't question at all your facts and figures. If you think this is going to happen in the Law of the Sea con- ference your patience is greater than mine. Mr. con- ference, I think this is the best place we have to negotiate in- ternational protection for salmon. The CHAIRMAN. But we don't touch a treaty; we don't touch a treaty. Mr. YONKER. I am talking about international recognition of salmon. The CHAIRMAN. If they would do that, that is the best thing we could do. But nothing happens Mr YONKER. I think this is the best vehicle for that. Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 684 The CHAIRMAN. I have spent, I Ision't know?I won't use the word? hours, or days, or weeks in this committee room protecting salmon and trying to get cooperation of the State Department, even o:i our treaties. Mr. YONRER. T understand. But, Senator, you have a law for our continental shelf that would take care of some of the catch Senator Stevens has been mentioning. The law has been on the books since 1984, and nothing has happened. I think we would have a better crab stock and halibut stock, both. Violations have been documented. There is no question about them. The CHAIRMAN. Well, it wasn't a law but an administrative direc- tive. It started, didn't it, with the Truman directive? Senator STEVENS. I have trouble with that, Walt, and I join the chairman in wishing you were with us. We have jurisdiction over the shelf, but no jurisdiction over the surface. Their trawling operations are legal. What happens as a result of the conflict with the king crab is not consistent. But how are you going to stop them from their trawling operations unless you have jurisdiction of the surface? Mr. YON:KER. If they are taking creatures off our shelf that are the property of the United States, they certainly have to trawl in those areas that would protect the creatures of the shelf in terms of the law. Senator STEVENS. We have protested those and the Coast Guard has gone out. As you know, there are substantial examples of wrong- doing as far as foreign nations are concerned, and ruining king crab here. Let me ask Walt two questions?and, again, I wish you were with US. You mentioned the pipeline. The pipeline will provide Alaska 30,000 jobs for 3 years. The Bristol Bay salmon industry at one time had 40,000 jobs in the Bristol Bay annually. Mr. YONKER. Yes, sir. Senator STEVENS. There were over 40 canneries, and the massive fleets of the whole west coast operating the Bristol Bay fisheries. This year it is absolutely closed down. I am informed two canneries? even the native people have been told not to fish for salmon for sub- sistence purposes because we are below survival levels. Unless we take some action, how can you :possibly expect that to be reinstituted and brought back up to a point where it is really a valuable, national asset? Mr. YON'RER. I don't think the 200 miles will protect the salmon, Senator. This is my problem. Senator STEVENS. I have those figures here. They are taking 1,989,- 218 metric tons?the Japanese alone are?almost 2 million metric tons within the 200-mile limit off Alaska. Mr. YoicHEn. Probably 4.5 million with the Russians and South Koreans, sir. Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP751300380R000500410005-1 685 Senator STEVENS. Don't you think they want to continue to take part of that? Mr. YONKER. Yes, I do. Senator STEVENS. That is our bargaining power. Mr. YONKER. You work your trade-off. Senator STEVENS. Trade-off? They are taking that already. They won't get it at all if we pass this, unless they stop taking salmon. Mr. YONKER. Don't you, with your nonexclusive fisheries zone? the 200 miles is a nonexclusive zone, as I understand it? Senator STEVENS. That's right, but it is subject to our regulations. Mr. YONKER. But if we are not using the resource, we might re- duce that take from 4.5 million tons to 3.5 or 2.5 for conservation reasons, but you will still have them there and still have the impact. Senator STEVENS. As far as the Japanese are concerned, they wouldn't get a fish out of that 200-mile zone unless they stopped that high-seas salmon fishing?not one fish. Mr. YONKER. It's an exclusive fisheries zone. Senator STEVENS. It has the power for an exclusive fisheries zone in the 200 miles. Mr. YONKER. My understanding of the legislation is that it ap- plies to a nonexclusive zone. Senator STEVENS. I think the old springboard case of taxation of national banks?power regulates the power to exclude. And certainly the power is there, which we don't have today. But I would like to have those 40,000 jobs back. I would much rather have 40,000 jobs every year forever than 30,000 jobs for 3 years. Mr. YONKER. Senator, realistically, with the same runs that you had when you had 40,000 jobs in the bay?if those runs existed today you wouldn't need 40,000 people to carry out those jobs. The tech- nology of the plants has changed markedly. You take plants that were running on lines with 50 cans a minute, and now they are running over 300 cans a minute. You have multiple- line plants; you have brine transportation. And you won't have the jobs in the bay, as I see it, because of technology. Senator STEVENS. I understand we have technology and moderni- zation, and we are all for that. We are not opposed to that. I would like to see them come back and modernize all those canneries and put them into operation and get rid of some of that floating equipment that looks like 14-story buildings. I am trying to get the commitee to go up there and see them. I don't think most people have seen some of those that have buildings as big as apartment buildings in Anchorage on them, schools on them, all year long. No one comprehends what is up there unless they have seen it. I know you have seen it. I wish you could see your way clear to agree with us on this. We are trying to protect your people. Mr. YONKER. I just don't see how a trade-off can do it, Senator, or I don't see how it could be done under the terms of this legislation. Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 686 When you set up a nonexclusive zone, you don't have a trade-off. If you have an exclusive fisheries zone, that's a different problem. Then you have a trade-off. The CHAIRMAN. It's kind of robbing Peter to pay Paul, isn't it? Well, I think we have had a healthy discussion. And, as I say, we three have discussed this many times. We happen to disagree. I think the Japanese will be more amenable to negotiation, rather than the other way. happen to think that. and I have had some experience with them. They don't want to lose the other things either. We advise them "Un- less we agree on certain things," and then we direct them to get a treaty going. Senator STEVENS. We'll help you to get it to their attention. I put a prohibition on that Alaska pipeline bill that no Alaskan oil gets exported. The next thing we'll do is put a prohibition on export of coal. If that doesn't get their attention, then we'll put the prohibi- tion, "no additional exports of timber products." One of these days they'll get the message, to get off our salmon. don't know how long it will take, Walt, but the time will come when they get the message, and when they get off the high-seas fishery and we can have some control in terms of sound management prac- tices over the whole North Pacific and Bering Sea, I think every- body, including the Japanese, will be better off. Mr. YONKER. I think your biggest bargaining point, if you can use it for bargaining for salmon, is oil. I think you could use bar- gaining with oil in other species as well and have as good a weapon as the 200 miles, or better. Senator STEVENS. We have to get their attention first. Mr. YONILER. You have to get their attention. The CHAIRMAN. There is one way to get their attention, and I'll tell you what it is. Senator STEVENS. Pass this bill. The CHAIRMAN. If we pass this bill, it will get their attention. Another thing that bothers me?I talked to some people down in Oregon about 2 weeks ago. The ocean perch people have stopped fishing because of the depletion of the stock. MT. YONICER. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. They just quit. I don't think there's a boat out there. Mr. YONKER. There are three or :four small boats. The CHATR3fAN. So we have to do something about this off our shores. I am hopeful that the salmon problem, which is 2,000 miles away, can be assisted by passage of this legislation. The 200-mile limit doesn't affect our problem out there. The only connection I see is that apparently there is some word around that if we do this, they are going to retaliate. Isn't that about the story? Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/09/W: CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Mr. YONKER. That's what I'm saying, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Now, where does that word come from? From them? Mr. YONKER. No it doesn't come from them. The CHAIRMAN. No, there are some grounds for believing that because we have had so much trouble with this treaty. Mr. YONKER. Senator, as I pointed out in Bellingham, we The CHAIIRMAN. But that is the whole basis of it. If the Japanese would say, "We don't mind the 200 miles," or, "We are not going to do anything; the salmon problem is another problem out here," it seems to me the salmon people would have no interest in the bil ex- cept to protect their fellow fishermen offshore. But maybe the State Department is pulling this one; is it? Mr. YONKER. Nol_I don't think so, sir. The CHAIRMAN. N o? Mr. YONKER. I can't believe that the Japanese? The CHAIRMAN. Well, they talk about it and they talked about it up in New York, and they are going to talk about it in Caracas. If this were true and we knew this was going to happen, it would be different. Because it deals with one species far offshore and not with what we are trying to do. Treaties are exempted in the bill, and they could even make trea- ties within the 200 miles or 150, or whatever it may be, and the State Department is directed to do that. Mr. YONKER. Senator, one thing I think should be recognized is that if we keep the 175 degree west line and the North Pacific Treaty or Convention, the Japanese will continue to be able to fish within 3 miles of our coast west of 175 degrees west, as they do now. The CHAIRMAN. Well, I don't quite see that. Mr. YONKER. In the terms of the INPFC treaty or convention, the Japanese can fish up to within 3 miles of our coast west of 175 degrees. Mr. STEVENS. For other than salmon. MT. YONKER. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. That is up in the Aleutians. That will only be in the Aleutians. Mr. YONKER. Yes sir. And if we keep that line with the treaty, they will still be able to fish there. Senator STEVENS. Subject to good management practices if we pass this bill. Mr. YONKER. No, because the bill won't affect an international treaty that continues in existence, as the Senator explains it to me. Senator STEVENS. I agree. We will have to continue to let them do it. Mr. YONKER. Regardless of the 200-mile law, they will still be able to fish within 3 miles of our coast. The CHAIRMAN. That's where they use those long nets. Mr. YONKER. Yes. Approved For Release 2001/09/07: CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CaggRDP751300380R000500410005-1 Senator S'TEVENS. That me they cut loose was 14 miles long, a monofilament net. And they slipped it in to evade the Coast Guard, a marauding net that catches fish by the school. You don't think we can regulate that? Mr. YONRER. That's my problem. We won't be able to regulate it west of the 175 if we keep the 175 in and go for the 200 miles. Senator STEVENS. I don't think that is inconsistent with the treaty, to say, "If you fish there you have to fish in accordance with stand- ards of civilization," which they are not doing now. Mr. YONKER. I might have some trouble with my definition. of "civilization." On conservation I agree with you. Senator STEVENS. When we went to the World Court, the U.S. Government, stood up on its hind feet and we destroyed them. The CHATRMAN. If we, let people like that scare us, I don't know what we'll come to. am just sitting here, Walt, wondering what I was doing out in the South :Pacifie, some years ago? It's pretty hard to figure out. Maybe at that time we should have put that in the treaty. We would have had a real treaty. Yes, and I was in Tokyo, helping draft material on the merchant marine and fisheries. Maybe I made a mistake, trying to be decent, and then they do things like this. Well, we have had a good discussion, and I want this record com- plete because I realize there are two sides to everything. Mr. YOINRER. One thing that bothers me?there are two things. One thing that bothers me is in the last 2 years Japanese fishing boats, gill netters? have been picked up south of Kodiak, 170, 180 miles offshore. It seems to me these people are probing the fishery migrations in the Gulf of Alaska, and this is the point I am trying to make, of the vulnerability of our salmon fishery in the Gulf. These are 600 or 700 miles over the line, and I am not sure it is navigational error at that point. These boats were there and were apprehended and sent back to Japan under the terms of the convention. The CHAIRMAN. Yes. And they probably will continue that whether we pass a bill or not, or whether anything is done in Caracas, or anything else?I shouldn't even mention Caracas. That is just a way station. It's Vienna. We'll probably end up in Paris with this con- ference sooner or later. All right, Walt. Mr. YONKER. Thank you, sir. rThe attachments referred to follow:] Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 1.-900014009000t108?0089/dC1U-VIO : /0/60/1?00Z aseeieu JOd PeACLIddV NORTH AMERICAN Japan High Seas Canada 28% ? W-0- C 9% / ? SE Alt Western Ali ? 13% Central Ak. 26% 21% 1,168 MILLION FISH ASIAN U. S. S. R. 35 % (M.S.) 24% Japan High Seas L.B.) 36% Japan Inshore 1,850 MILLION FISH CATCHES OF NORTH AMERICAN AND ASIAN SALMON, ALL SPECIES AND 1954 TO 1968 COMBINED AND PERCENTAGES TAKEN BY FISHERY - AREA - COUNTRY (From Fredin, unpubl. MS., HOAR, NMFS, Seattle, WA) 1.-900014009000t108?0089/dC1U-VIO :A/60400Z aseeieu -10d peACLIddV Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500410005-1 e.5Ai ?1 -f ?I 1 -1? nH-H+H- Hit 1. --I-- 111mi l_iTiv 1!II`K 1 , t -t--t-t-t-- -. , , , . ri-trfrf-1-11711 -r1-1-1?r- 1 c i , i i !?I i ! 1 1 Li- 1-ill 17 il, -I - i-i- . - -4 -I Fri I 1 CI i ' ? --,----:k.i.3-1-9.-',------ 1--i- 4- 0?-71 -4- -11H-1" 260.- 1 : i 1 ! I ' ! ; "-* --,---,----r- -------7- , il lili 1 : ESTIMATES OF POTENTIAL AVERAGE ANNUAL CATCH OF SALMON BY A HIGH SEAS GILLNET FLEET OF 369 CATCHER-BOATS FISHING DURING A 60-DAY PERIOD IN THE SPRING OUTSIDE 200-MILE LINE IN TUE GULF OF ALASKA. (Frnm Vrefifr, unp01 MS MAAA, MAR. C.ktrla WA)