take every fish that you want. They can sit out there beyond 12, and if they are going to exercise bad conservation, they can kill your fish right at 12 miles, just as well as they can do it at 4.

The majority of these ships have stayed farther out to sea, and are destroying stocks which in some cases American fishermen have fished, and in other cases they are completely new stocks, which I think you will hear from the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries.

Mr. PELLY. But the migrating fish like the salmon that come in and concentrate in these runs can be taken between the 3- and 12mile limit a lot better than they can way out 1,500 miles.

Mr. NEBLETT. Yes, sir, but have they, by foreign fleets?

Mr. PELLY. Well, the Japanese have been under agreement to stay

out.

Mr. NEBLETT. Yes, sir. That is exactly the point I am trying to make, that some of these questions are really phantom questions. It is what could happen.

Mr. PELLY. Not as far as the Soviet Union is concerned. They have ceased to be a phantom, now. Their trawl fleets have come right in. Mr. DOWNING. We will not have further time to go into this subject. Mr. KEITH. Before you adjourn, Mr. Chairman, on behalf of an industry which really has not been mentioned here today, the scallop industry in the city of New Bedford, and with absolutely no quid pro quo in promise to support their efforts insofar as territorial limitations are concerned, I would like to present on behalf of the city of New Bedford and the witnesses here today, and the seafood people, a tie clasp of gold scallop shells.

Mr. DOWNING. The Chairman is overwhelmed. Thank you and the city of New Bedford for this beautiful tie clasp.

Mr. KEITH. You may recall at an earlier session we had cherrystone clams.

Mr. PELLY. Mr. Chairman, I already have a mermaid tie clasp here, and I will put the scallop above the mermaid.

Mr. DOWNING. Thank you very much.

The Chair appreciates the contributions of the witnesses.

The committee will adjourn until next Wednesday.

(Whereupon, at 11:10 a.m., the committee adjourned, to reconvene Wednesday, June 1, 1966.)

65-204-66-pt. 1-22

MISCELLANEOUS FISHERIES LEGISLATION

FISHING RIGHTS

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 1, 1966

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION

OF THE COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES, Washington, D.C. The committee met at 10:10 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Thomas N. Downing presiding.

Mr. DOWNING. The committee will come to order.

This morning we will resume hearings on H.R. 9531 and identical bills.

Our first witness will be Hon. Clarence F. Pautzke, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Fish and Wildlife and Parks. Mr. Secretary, we are delighted to have you, and we do appreciate your patience in this matter.

Mr. PELLY. Mr. Chairman, if I might comment, I might say that I especially welcome Mr. Pautzke here this morning. He is a former University of Washington football player of note, but more important to me is that he is vitally interested in fisheries, and we in the State of Washington are very proud of him.

STATEMENT OF HON. CLARENCE F. PAUTZKE, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR FISH AND WILDLIFE AND PARKS; ACCOMPANIED BY WILLIAM M. TERRY, BUREAU OF COMMERCIAL FISHERIES, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Mr. PAUTZKE. Thank you very much, Congressman Pelly. We surely are in the midst of fisheries problems.

Mr. Chairman and other members of the committee, I appreciate the opportunity of appearing before this committee.

I would like first to introduce my colleague who is here with me, Mr. William Terry, who is the Director of International Affairs for the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, and will assist me on any questions that you might have pertaining to my statement here, or other fisheries problems.

May I read my statement? It is not too long. I believe you have a copy of it.

I am appearing before you to give our views on H.R. 9531, which would extend the fisheries jurisdiction of the United States from the present 3 miles to 12 miles offshore.

While we do not object to the enactment of this bill, we would like to present pertinent information for the committee's consideration as to what effect its enactment at this time may have on the American fishing industry.

In 1958 and 1960, Law of the Sea Conferences were held in Geneva on the question of fishery jurisdiction. But no agreement was reached. Subsequent to those meetings, certain nations took unilateral action to extend jurisdiction over fisheries.

As these developments took place, the Department assessed its own position in relationship to the effect any proposed extended jurisdiction by the United States might have on the domestic industry.

Our present position on the proposed 12-mile fisheries limit has been arrived at against the background of several years of study and debate.

After evaluating all factors involved, we conclude that the advantages and disadvantages, when balanced against each other, are such that there is no clear case for extending U.S. fisheries jurisdiction beyond 3 miles at this time.

As for the future, the Department's estimates of supply and demand suggest that there will be increased demands upon the U.S. commercial fishing industry and upon the resources now within the range of that industry for more fish and fishery products.

The estimates also suggest the possibility of a demand which the industry may not be able to satisfy from the fishery resources off the U.S. coasts.

While these admittedly are estimates, we do believe that future uncertainties require the preservation of flexibility for future U.S. actions.

As a practical matter, it should be noted that only American fishermen now fish in the zone between 3 and 12 miles, except off the coast of Alaska, where we know of intermittent Japanese and Soviet fishing.

It seems evident, of course, that growing foreign fishing operations may alter this situation. In the northeast Pacific several hundred Japanese and Soviet fishing vessels operate off our coasts, mostly well beyond 12 miles.

We believe it is probable that there will be an increase in the operations of these vessels within 12 miles of the U.S. coasts at some time in the future. However, in view of the species they now seek, and the location of these fish, it seems doubtful that this shift will occur in the immediate future.

One of the arguments often advanced against extension of U.S. jurisdiction is that an important part of the U.S. industry relies upon fishing in waters close to the coasts of foreign countries, and that these fishermen would be adversely affected by any retaliatory extension by other countries.

We estimate that during the period 1959-63 about 15 percent by value of the U.S. catch was taken off foreign coasts. The catches consist largely of tuna and shrimp.

Also of importance in considering the fisheries jurisdiction question is the fact that a significant portion of the fish stocks now supporting the U.S. coastal fisheries can and does move freely through the zone of water between 3 and 12 miles and beyond.

The total average marine fishery catch off our coasts for the 195963 period was about 4,500 million pounds. About 68 percent of this was from our present territorial waters. About 13 percent of the catch was taken between 3 and 12 miles, which this bill would add to out excluusive fishing zone. The remaining 19 percent was taken beyond 12 miles.

In summary, concerning H.R. 9531, the establishment of an exclusive fishing zone out to 12 miles would offer some protection to a portion of our domestic industry, but may result in other segments of our fishing industry losing part of their present catch off foreign coasts. Should foreign fleets begin to fish extensively within 12 miles of the U.S. coast, the advantages of establishing a 9-mile contiguous zone beyond the territorial sea of the United States would soon outweigh the disadvantages cited.

We take a different view concerning H.R. 14961. This bill would extend our jurisdiction over fisheries out to 12 miles or the 200 meter contour line, whichever is farthest. Although the balance of advantages and disadvantages from the creation of a 9-mile contiguous zone for fishery purposes may be arguable, may be an issue on which honest men's opinions differ, it is our view that there can be little question regarding the balance of advantages and disadvantages from broader extensions of jurisdiction such as those contemplated in this bill.

In our judgement, an attempt by the United States to extend its jurisdiction to the waters above the Continental Shelf or beyond would be unacceptable to many nations, and particularly to those nations primarily affected by such extension.

At the same time, the mere fact of a claim by the United States to extended jurisdiction-whether the claims were made effective or not-would strengthen the claims advanced by many governments in Latin America, and would thus substantially increase the threat to the U.S. fishery operating in waters off South America coasts.

In brief, such an effort by the United States would, in our judgment, be ineffective in achieving the sought-after objective, and at the same time would diminish by an unacceptable amount the ability of the United States to minimize the effect on U.S. distant-water fisheries of extreme Latin American claims.

I have an addition to my statement here that I will read.

Our objection to jurisdiction beyond the 12 miles does not mean that we ignore the problems caused by the foreign fishing which have been mentioned so often before this committee. We are aware of these problems. There are, however, other ways of dealing with them, particularly the conservation problem.

I have in mind specifically the negotiation route, which we have used successfully so many times in the past.

I have in mind also the 1958 Geneva Conference on Fisheries.

This, Mr. Chairman, is my statement, and I would be pleased to answer any questions that we may be able to answer.