they had 60 or 70 walruses washed ashore without any evidence of physical harm. Is that because they are old age, or starving? Mr. BURNS. A combination of all the above. Poorer conditions. Mr. YOUNG. That is a higher rate than it was in 1972? Mr. BURNS. I cannot answer that question directly, because the rate is-it is a higher number; yes. Whether the rate is higher, we do not have that kind of scientific information. Mr. OBERSTAR [presiding]. The time of the gentleman has expired. Mr. YOUNG. Could I ask one more question? Mr. OBERSTAR. Yes. Mr. YOUNG. The whales are on the decline. Were the seals harvested commercially by the whalers for oil? Mr. BURNS. Seals were taken, and walruses were taken in large numbers mainly for their oil. Mr. YOUNG. Do we have any statistics on the population after that? Mr. BURNS. That is the situation with regard to walruses, where the pre-exploited level approximated to 200,000, and it was driven to a low of approximately 50,000. They since recovered, and gone very high, to an excess of 280,000. Mr. YOUNG. Actually exceeded prior to the whaling area of time? Mr. BURNS. Probably so. Mr. YOUNG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. OBERSTAR. The gentleman from Washington. Mr. LowRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Skoog, Mr. Burns, which of the animals under this act do you believe should be managed by the State, and which managed primarily by the Federal Government? Mr. SKOOG. We have requested nine species for return of management. It includes the sea otter and the polar bear; there are five species of seal, the sea lion, and beluga whale. Of those that we feel should be handled by the Federal Government would be all the whales and porpoises. Those offshore species. Mr. LowRY. Of the nine species that you have requested be primarily managed by the State, how many of those migrate beyond 3-mile limits or 12-mile limits and, how important is that question as far as the management of- Mr. BURNS. I think the question is very important, because it is a fine point raised on many an argument. Sea lions, harbor seals, and sea otters, which are the most coastal of the coastal species, and utilize shore areas onshore which must be protected, all range beyond 3 miles. They are not internally migratory in the sense that they move into the jurisdiction of another nation, except near Canada. Our request is indeed for those species which are of direct and continuing importance to our residents. Those species for which the State of Alaska can mount an adequate and continuing research and management program, and those species which occur without exception on the Continental Shelf primarily. Some of them are more migratory than others. Certainly the walrus moves into international waters. It is a direct and continuing support to the residents of Alaska. Mr. LowRY. Thank you. I want to ask Mr. Snow basically that same question. For instance, sea lions in Oregon-how far do they usually traverse? Mr. SNOW. The harbor seals will be pretty well within the 3-mile limit. The California sea lions that come up in the winter will be well within the 3-mile limit most of the time. We would not be concerned about the animals offshore, it is the ones that are starting to move into our estuaries, coming in from offshore, and starting to inhabit the inland waters that are of real concern. Mr. LowRY. What about coordination between States, for instance, on the Pacific coast? Mr. SNOW. Pardon? Mr. LowRY. What about coordination between marine mammal management in the States-how was that worked, previous to 1972? Could you address yourself to that? Mr. SNOW. Prior to 1972, Oregon did not have any program. We had just been given authority over these animals, in about 1969 or 1971 legislature, and we were just starting to bring a program into place, and so we had no reason to cooperate with the other States at that point in time, but our cooperation has always been good with Washington and Alaska and California, through the Pacific Marine Fisheries Commission, and there is no reason to think that that would not be the same with marine mammals. Mr. LowRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. BREAUX [presiding]. Mr. Hughes, questions? Mr. HUGHES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You have identified some nine species that States should manage. What is the capability of the States to manage these species at the present time? Mr. SKOOG. I think, as John Burns mentioned before, we are willing to start a program up once again, of the same nature, and expand it over what we had in 1972, which included six full-time marine biologists, and a budget that we would request now, of about $1.5 million. Of course, it would include all the other aspects of the Department's services. We have some 10 area biologists scattered around the coast that would be involved with marine mammal work, as part of their other duties. Mr. HUGHES. What States would you identify as States that would be directly involved for managing marine mammals? Mr. SKOOG. Washington, California, Oregon, Florida, and Maine. Mr. HUGHES. Have you been in contact with all the States that would be directly impacted? Do they all have the capability of picking up the management responsibilities? Mr. SKOOG. I guess I cannot speak to them. We have been in conversations and discussions with them, as to their desires to implement management programs, and they all seem to have this desire. Do you know of any that have not, John? Mr. HUGHES. Do all of the States have some semblance of a management program in place? Mr. SKOOG. No, it was preempted under the- Mr. HUGHES. I understand, but―― Mr. SKOOG. And prior to that time, I think as Dale has indicated, they did not have authority under their State laws to manage the marine mammals until just immediately before the preemption. So I think a lot of the States have not gotten involved with marine mammals to any great extent. Mr. HUGHES. I suspect that all the States would have the budgetary problems, they would have to have some time to begin a new funding cycle to pick up management of any species. Mr. SKOOG. They very well might have such problems. That depends on the State's attitude toward marine mammals. I think Oregon and Washington probably would move right ahead, because they have had serious conflicts with the marine mammal population and their fisheries. Alaska, of course, has the majority of the marine mammal species, more so than any other State. It is unique in that regard, and that is one reason, as we got statehood, we immediately sought to implement a marine mammal program, because of the great importance of those animals to the residents of the State. Alaska is a lot different from the other States, the magnitude. Mr. HUGHES. In your judgment, would leadtime be required for the States to pick up the management of all nine of the species, or any given number of that species? Mr. SKOOG. We could do it immediately. We have been planning for this for 8 years. As soon as the Marine Mammal Act was passed, in December of 1972, in January 1973 we had already started our petition to get management back on these nine species, and to continue our program. We had difficulty in maintaining our program, simply because we have not had the management authority, and therefore the Legislature does not want to fund for any program for animals on which we have no control. We could do it immediately. Mr. HUGHES. How about you, Mr. Snow? Mr. SNOW. Well, we probably-well, I will back up. We have a management program on the drawing board that would have to be taken out and fine tuned, of course, because it was drawn up in 1973, and nothing has been done with it since. But looking at our process for adopting regulations, I would say within less than 6 months we would have a program in place for funding; of course funding is always tough, it is particularly tough right now, but we also have two additional sources of funding in Oregon, other than our general game fund, we have a program called watchable wildlife that would certainly enter into this area, where funding is from donations from the public, the other is a nongame fund, and we would probably draw on these resources for setting up areas for observation of marine mammals and this type of thing. So I feel we are in good condition, on top of that, our people in our industry are demanding that something be done. So we will respond a little faster that way. Mr. HUGHES. Would you respond the same way as Mr. Skoog did, with other States, that you have no direct knowledge of what their capabilities are at this time? Mr. SNOW. The only one I am aware of is Alaska. I know that Washington has a program on the books, I think it is still in place. I think they would probably be able to immediately go to it. California, I am rather certain has a program, too, because of the sea otter, I know they are well aware of their marine mammals down there, so I suspect that they would probably be on board immediately. Mr. HUGHES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. BREAUX. Mr. Patman, any questions? Mr. BREAUX. Mr. Sunia, any questions? Mr. BREAUX. Mr. Tauzin, any questions? Mr. TAUZIN. No questions. Mr. BREAUX. Gentlemen, I think you are all going to be here, and could respond to any followup to any questions that we have, or respond in writing to any questions that we might have. Mr. HAYDEN. Mr. Chairman, could I ask one question? Would the Chair desire that I check with California and Washington specifically on the point of capability, and get the information for the record? Mr. BREAUX. That would be helpful, if you could get it for the record. Now, we would like to welcome up Mr. Dennis Tiepelman, director of governmental and legislative affairs, Alaska Natives Federation, we understand he might be accompanied by Don Mitchell, counsel. Gentlemen, we welcome you, and we are pleased to receive your testimony. STATEMENT OF DENNIS TIEPELMAN, DIRECTOR, GOVERNMENTAL AND LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS, ALASKA NATIVES FEDERATION, ACCOMPANIED BY DON MITCHELL, COUNSEL Mr. TIEPELMAN. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, let me preface my remarks by making the statement as follows. In Eskimo it is a matter of pleasantries to say something like (Eskimo phrase used), which is a combination of it is a wonderful day, hello, how are you. There are no pleasantries that say just hello, but it creates a relationship that an Eskimo, Inupiaq, could say to anyone, and our relationship to this committee. My name is Dennis Tiepelman. Also with me is Don Mitchell. I am the director of governmental and legislative affairs for the Alaska Federation of Natives, AFN. AFN is the statewide organization formed by 11 of the 13 Native regional corporations established by the Alaskan Native Claims Settlement Act, and all of the Native regional nonprofit associations that deal with the social issues and, the matters such as this, Marine Mammal Protection Act reauthorization hearings. Together, those organizations represent the totality of the approximately 80,000 Native residents of Alaska, and more particularly, the totality of the Alaska Natives who reside on the coast of the North Pacific Ocean, and the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort Seas, who harvest marine mammals for subsistence purposes, for the purposes of creating and selling authentic Native handicrafts. On behalf of the AFN, I would like to express our appreciation for the opportunity to testify here today, and our support for a 2year reauthorization of the Marine Mammal Protection Act, without amendment. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I would ask that the rest of the comments be submitted for the record, and as I have a prepared statement, and the testimony can be read and further studied as the position of the Alaska Native Federation. Mr. BREAUX. Without objection, your entire statement will be made a matter of the record. [The following was received for the record:] Statement of Dennis Tiepelman, Director of Governmental and LegiSLATIVE Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, my name is Dennis Tiepelman. I am the director of governmental and legislative affairs for the Alaska Federation of Natives (AFN). The Alaska Federation of Natives is the statewide organization formed by eleven of the thirteen Native regional corporations established by the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act and all of the Native regional non-profit associations. Together those organizations represent the totality of the approximately 80,000 Native residents of Alaska, and more particularly, the totality of the Alaska Natives who reside on the coast of the North Pacific Ocean and the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort Seas who harvest marine mammals for subsistence purposes for the purposes of creating and selling authentic native handicrafts. On behalf of the AFN, I would like to express our appreciation for the opportunity to testify here today and our support for a two year reauthorization of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), without amendment. For thousands of years the Native residents of the coast of Alaska have harvested marine mammals for their sustenance. Indeed, the location of most coastal villages was determined by the desirability of a particular location as a staging area to support the marine mammal subsistence harvest. And the marine mammal subsistence harvest remains today the basis of the social, cultural, and economic organization of those communities. In 1972 the Congress enacted the Marine Mammal Protection Act. This historic legislation implemented two important and complimentary, public policy goals-the protection of marine mammal populations of national and international significance, and the protection of the Alaska Native subsistence way of life. These goals are complementary in that both marine mammals and the Native residents of the Alaska coast are natural parts of the same ecosystem. The MMPA was carefully crafted to strike a balance between these two policy goals by establishing a moratorium on the taking of marine mammals coupled with an exemption for hunting by Alaska Natives as long as such hunting is done in a non-wasteful manner, is restricted to non-depleted species, and is undertaken for either subsistence or handicraft purposes. And in large measure this approach has achieved the major goals of the act. Certainly the MMPA can be improved, what in life cannot? However, any suggested changes must be evaluated against what has already been accomplished. Consequently, any proposed amendment must be judged by asking first whether the amendment will result in greater or lesser protection for marine mammal populations, and second whether the amendment will also result in at least the same level of protection of the Alaska Native subsistence way of life. If the answer to either question is no, the amendment must be rejected. The Alaska Federation of Natives is aware of the interest of several organizations, including the State of Alaska, in amending the act to achieve a number of ancillary goals, including the return of management of marine mammals in Alaska to the State of Alaska. In response to that interest and in anticipation of this hearing, on January 26th and 27th, AFN sponsored a meeting in Anchorage on the reauthorization of the MMPA. Representatives from almost every native region of the State, including representatives from the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission, the Eskimo Walrus Commission, Nunam Kitlutsisti, the North Slope Borough, the Copper River Native Association, Kawerak, Mauneluk, and the Bering Sea Fishermen's Association all participated. At the request of AFN, Ron Sommerville from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Bob Eisenbud, counsel to the Marine Mammal Commission, Keith Schreiner, regional director of the Fish and Wildlife Service, and Mil Zahn I |