1 + / 0 / 7 REVIEW OF THE 32D IN TERNATIO N AL^ W 5 6 '^ WHALING COMMISSION MEETING JO VE KN ME Nl ______yX* sto ra g e : U M E N T £

.u C 2 21980

f A P K f c U L . lib r ar y STATE UNIVERSITY H E A R IN G BEF ORE TH E SUBC OMM ITTEE ON INTERNATION AL ORG ANIZATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS HOUSE OF REP RESENT ATIVES NINE TY -SIXTII CONGRESS SE CO ND SE SS IO N : J un m j - SE PTEM BER 10, 1980 H IT □ Pri nte d fo r th e use of th e Com mittee on Fo re ig n Affa irs □ r H

<

U.S. GO VE RN MEN T PR IN TI NG OFF IC E 68-796 O WAS HI NG TO N : 1980 - *4 •

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS

CLEMENT J. ZABLOCKI, Wisconsin, Ch air ma n L. H. FOUNTAIN, North Carolina WILLIAM S. BROOMFIELD, Michigan DANTE B. FASCELL, Florida EDWARD J. DERWINSKI, Illinois * BENJAMIN S. ROSENTHAL, New York PAUL FINDLEY, Illinois LEE H. HAMILTON, Indiana JOHN H. BUCHANAN, J r., Alabama LESTER L. WOLFF, New York LARRY WINN, J r., Kansas JONATHAN B. BINGHAM, New York BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York GUS YATRON, Pennsylvania TENNYSON GUYER, Ohio * CARDISS COLLINS, Illinois ROBERT J. LAGOMARSINO, California STEPHEN J. SOLARZ, New York WILLIAM F. GOODLING, Pennsylvania DON BONKER, Washington JOEL PRITCHARD, Washington GERRY E. STUDDS, Massachusetts MILLICENT FENWICK, New Jersey ANDY IRELAND, Florida DAN QUAYLE, Indiana DONALD J. PEASE, Ohio DAN MICA, Florida MICHAEL D. BARNES, Maryland WILLIAM H. GRAY III, Pennsylvania TONY P. HALL, Ohio HOWARD WOLPE, Michigan DAVID R. BOWEN, Mississippi FLOYD J. FITHIAN, Indiana BERKLEY BEDELL, Iowa J ohn J. B rady, J r., Chi ef of St a ff Sandra P. R einhardt, S ta ff As sistan t

Sub co mm itt ee on I nte rnati ona l O rg an izat ions DON BONKER, Was hington, Ch air ma n TONY P. HALL, Ohio EDWARD J. DERWINSKI, Illinois FLOYD J. FITHIAN, Indiana DAN QUAYLE, Indiana DAVID R. BOWEN, Mississippi BERKLEY BEDELL, Iowa Ai.an E. V an E gmond, Su bc om mi tte e S ta ff Director Lawrence B. S ulc, M inor ity S ta ff Consulta nt Carole A. G runberg, Su bc om mi tte e S ta ff Assoc iate S Fariborz S. F atemi, Su bc om mi tte e S ta ff Asso cia te

( II ) 4 C O N T E N T S

WITNESSES

Hon Richard A. Frank, Administrator, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and U.S. Commissioner to the IWC...... 2 » Craig Van Note, executive vice president, the Monitor...... 24 Christine Stevens, secretary, Society for Animal Protective Legislation^ " " iff 47 Patricia Forkan, vice president for program and communications, the Humane Society of the United States...... go

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD NOAA statem ent on the vote on the Spanish-British Isles stock of fin w hale s.. 18

APPENDIXES 1. Text of letter dated September 12, 1980 to Hon. Richard A. Frank, from Subcommittee Chairman Bonker requesting additional information for the record...... 2. Response of Hon. Richard A. Frank to Mr. Bonkefs lette r o f September 12" 83 3 ‘ T ^ t °f letter dated September 25, 1980, to Hon. Richard Frank from the 84 U.S. Deputy Commissioner to the IWC, Tom Garre tt...... 91

(h i )

t

REVIEW OF THE 32D INTERNATIONAL WHALING COMMISSION MEETING

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 1980

> House of R epresentative s , Committee on F oreign A ffa irs , Subcommittee on I nte rna tional O rga nizations , Washington, D.C. * The subcommittee met at 2 p.m., in room 2255, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Don Bonker (chairm an of th e subcommittee) presiding. Mr. Bonker . The Subcommittee on International Organizations will come to order. The subcommittee is meeting today for its thir d hearing on the 32d International Whaling Commission meeting that took place in Brighton, England, from July 21 through July 26, 1980. The chair­ man regrets the legislative schedule at the time prevented his attendance at that session. The purpose of today’s subcommittee hearing is to review the results of the 32d ann ual Commission meeting; specifically, the effectiveness of the U.S. delegation in promoting whale conserva­ tion and protection. The results of the 32d annual IWC were generally satisfactory. On the positive side, the IWC reduced overall catch limits by about 12 percent; agreed to include kille r whales in the moratorium on factory ship whaling; agreed to ban the use of the cold harpoon for all but minke whales; and adopted a 3-year block quota of 45 landed and 65 struck for the take of bowhead whales in the Bering Sea stock. Among the major disappointments were the Commission’s failure to adopt moratoria on commercial and sperm whaling; its failure to * extend formal jurisdiction to include the regulation of small ceta­ ceans; and the high commercial quotas adopted for the Spain- Portugal-British Isles stock of fin whales—440 for 2 years as op­ posed to the 143 recommended by the Scientific and Technical * Committees for 1981—and the western division of th e North Pacific stock of sperm whales—890 as opposed to the Scientific and Techni­ cal Committees’ recommendations of zero quotas. The committee was represented by Carole Grunberg of the sub­ committee staff who has prepared a report that will be made available for distribu tion. 1 We were also represented by Congress­ man Pete McCloskey, who has a longstanding inte rest in this sub-

1 Copies of the full report are on file in the subcommittee office. A summary report will be published in the January 1961 issue of the American Journal of International Law. (1) 2 ject and who was to be here this afternoon to testify and may be arriving sometime during the hearing. We have as our first witness the U.S. Commissioner to the IWC, Richard Fran k, who has long been active in the Whaling Commis­ sion meetings and who has led the U.S. delegation on several occasions. He will testify on behalf of the administration. Then we have non-Government organization representatives, Craig Van Note, Christine Stevens, and Patricia Forkan. They will be providing testimony as well. I th ink before we call our first witness before the subcommittee I will ask Congressman Tony Hall if he has an opening statem ent or any comments at this time? Mr. H all. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. « I do not have an opening statement. I will be asking questions after the witnesses have testified. Thank you. Mr. Bonker. Very well. At this time I would like to call before our subcommittee Mr. • Richard Fran k, U.S. Commissioner to the IWC, who will testify on behalf of the U.S. delegation. Mr. Frank, if you want to introduce those who are accompanying you to the witness table, you may do so a t this time for the official record. STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD A. FRANK, ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION AND U.S. COMMISSIONER TO THE IWC Mr. Frank. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 1 have with me Eldon Greenberg, General Counsel of NOAA. He was a member of our delegation and I have asked him to come here to help in answering questions. I have a brief opening statement. If that could be put in its entirety in the record, I would be happy to summarize here. Mr. Bonker. Without objection, your stateme nt will be made part of the record. Mr. Frank. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee. I appreciate your inviting me to appear this afternoon to discuss th e results of the 32d annu al meeting of the Inte rnation ­ al Whaling Commission (IWC), held in Brighton, England, from July 21-26, 1980. Although the IWC did not adopt all of our posi- « tions, we nonetheless achieved important gains this year in our * whale protection efforts. With the assistance of the Congress and the environmental community and other conservationist countries, we succeeded in reducing whaling operations, already reduced by about 70 percent in the past 8 years. I am convinced t ha t we have reached the point at which commercial whaling will have no eco­ nomic justification, and its negative aspects will outweigh its bene­ fits to whaling countries. This renders the gains made at this meeting even more significant. In sum, I believe as a result of the gains of the last couple of years and this year we will see the end of whaling in various countries and ultimately th e end of commercial whaling worldwide. I would like to summarize our accomplishments at the 32d annual meeting and then discuss those tasks which still remain. 3 With respect to the reduction of quotas, our efforts were reward­ ed by a reduction in overall quotas of approximately 12 percent. You referred to that earlier. The figure is 12 percent if one in­ cludes adjustments for the factory ship moratorium, the Indian Ocean sanctuary, and the voluntary restraints promised by several countries. I am subm itting for the record a table comparing the new quotas with those established since 1973. I was particularly pleased that the IWC again significantly re­ duced sperm whale quotas. The North Pacific sperm whale quota has now been lowered to 890 males and zero females, a level below the 900 sperm whales which Jap an has long claimed to be the minimum necessary to sustain its sperm whale harvest. > Moreover, of the 13,851 whales which may be taken this next year, approximately 80 percent consist of m inke whales, a health­ ier and more numerous species of much smaller whales. With respect to killer whales, as you may know, last year the • Soviet Union took 916 killer whales with factory ships. The United States proposed, and the IWC adopted, a schedule amendment to eliminate the taking by factory ship operations of killer whales. I hope this will now put the k iller whale problem behind us. With respect to humane killing, the United States strongly sup­ ported a schedule amendment prohibiting the use of cold—nonex­ plosive—harpoons to kill any whale. Recognizing at the meeting that the proposal would fail if it were to take immediate effect on minke whaling operations, we supported an amended schedule change which would prohibit the use of cold harpoons to kill any species except the minke whale and a resolution to extend the prohibition to minke whales next year. Both the schedule change and the resolution were adopted by the IWC. With respect to the aboriginal/subsistence bowhead whaling in Alaska, as in years past, the bowhead whale quota was an item of controversy. The United States supplied documentation tending to confirm the conclusion which the Scientific Committee reached last year that the bowhead population would probably decline, even in the absence of a further harvest. In my statem ent to the Commis­ sion, I indicated that after weighing all factors, firm biological evidence should be para mount and that the survival of the stock should not be risked to satisfy the cultural needs of Eskimos, particularly if alternatives are available. Based on the preliminary « scientific evidence, a sustained harvest of bowhead whales at cur­ ren t levels over an extended period of time would endanger the herd and would jeopardize the Eskimos’ own interests. The United States proposed a tran sition period during which we could cooper- « ate with the Eskimos in developing and studying the implications of more biological evidence, exploring subsistence alternatives, and improving hunting practices and weapons to increase the efficiency of the hunt. The Commission responded by establishing a 3-year block quota beginning in 1981 of 45 bowhead whales landed or 65 struck, whichever occurs first, with the maximum landed in any 1 year of 17. This 3-year quota grants us partial domestic management and, I believe, strikes an equitable balance between bowhead protection and Eskimo needs during an interim period needed to solve the problems associated with the bowhead harvest. 4 The willingness of IWC members to provide equipment to and a market for nonmember whalers has, in the past, presented one of the more serious obstacles for effective internationa l whale conser­ vation. Our insistence that such support of “pirate whaling,” as it is called, undermines the effectiveness of the IWC has largely stemmed these practices. Significant progress has been made in eliminating “flag of convenience” whaling vessels, and Japan, a prime target of criticism in the past, has, in cooperation with the Republic of Korea, established a system of documentation require­ ments that should eliminate the importation of whale meat from nonmember nations. The Commission established a working group to examine all questions relating to whaling operations outside the IWC and to » report to the next annual meeting those measures that are appro­ priate and desirable to restrict activities outside the present con­ vention. Another item of controversy related to whether the IWC has the • auth ority to establish and maintain appropriate management measures for all whales, including those that are called small cetaceans. The United States main tained and still maintains tha t the IWC has jurisdiction over small cetaceans. However, the com­ plexity of the small cetacean problem, involving the issues of juris­ diction, aboriginal whaling, and coastal states’ rights, led to an impasse on this issue. The IWC did adopt a resolution supporting the Scientific Committee’s mandate to monitor the population status of all whales and make appropriate recommendations, and deferred the resolution of the jurisdictional question to subsequent meetings. As noted, last year the IWC adopted a moratorium on factory ship operations in all oceans and for all species except the minke whale. This moratorium falls short of our goal to halt all commer­ cial whaling. The United States continues to believe that the IWC conservation program is inadequate to manage whales without sub­ jecting them to unacceptable risks. While we will continue to have difficulty in obtaining the votes of three-fourths of the IWC mem­ bers for a moratorium, the United States will continue to support this goal as the cornerstone of our whaling policy. In the absence of a commercial whaling moratorium, the United States will continue to promote an indefinite moratorium on the taking of sperm whales. The lack of sperm whale data provides a « prime example of deficiencies resulting in an inability to estimate accurately stock abundance or to develop biologically meaningful models. A year ago the United States proposed a schedule change that « would have prohibited whaling by vessels that fail to submit data required by the Commission. That initiative did not succeed. This year we again pressed for this measure and, although the schedule change was not adopted, the Commission approved a resolution regarding submission of data which we will carry forward as a precedent in our commitment to improving the data available to the Scientific Committee. At the annual meeting, the Commission established a working group to develop specific proposals to revise the new management procedure in accordance with the recommendations of the special 5 scientific working group charged with considering revised manage­ ment principles. These recommendations include changes that the United States has proposed, and would not only effectively phase out those whaling operations that refuse to provide required data, but also lower quotas proportionately to the uncertainty of existing knowledge about specific whale stocks. In conclusion, Americans profoundly care about whale protection and their mandate to us has been and will continue to be dis­ charged diligently and strenuously. We shall remain firm in our commitment to pursue effective whale conservation and to achieve a moratorium. I tha nk you for this opportunity and would be pleased to answer any questions you may have. [Mr. Fran k’s prepared statement follows:]

P rep ared Sta te men t of H on . R ich ard A. F rank, A dm in istr at or , NO AA , Dep art ­ men t of Com mer ce , an d U.S. Commissioner , Inte rn ati onal W halin g Commis­ sion

Mr . C hair m an an d Mem bers o f th e S u b c o m m it te e :

Than k yo u f o r i n v i t i n q me to a p p e a r t h i s m o rn in g to discuss the results of the 32nd Annual Meeting of the

I n t e r n a t i o n a l W hali ng C om m is si on (" IW C "), h e ld in B r ig h to n ,

E n g la n d , from J u l y 21 - 26, 1980. A lt h o u g h th e IWC d id n o t adopt all of our positions, we nonetheless achieved important gains this year in our whale protection efforts. With the a s s i s t a n c e o f th e C o n g re ss an d th e e n v iro n m e n ta l com m unit y, we succeeded in reducing whaling operations, already reduced by a b o u t 70 p e r c e n t in th e p a s t e i g h t y e a r s . I am c o n v in c e d t h a t we hav e re a c h e d th e p o in t a t w hic h co m m erc ia l w h a li n g 6 w i l l h av e no econom ic j u s t i f i c a t i o n , an d i t s n e g a tiv e a s p e c t s w i l l o u tw e ig h i t s b e n e f i t s to w h a li n g c o u n t r i e s .

T h is r e n d e r s th e g a in s made a t t h i s m e e ti n g even mor e s i g n i f i c a n t .

In my te s tim o n y to d a y I w i l l su m m ari ze o u r a c c o m p li s h ­ m en ts a t th e 32 nd A nnual M e e ti n g , an d th e n d is c u s s th o s e ta s k s w hic h s t i l l re m a in .

I . A cco m p li sh m en ts a t th e 32 nd IWC M eeti n g

A. R e d u c ti o n o f Q u o ta s *

B ecau se th e IWC f a i l e d to a d o p t a c o m p re h e n siv e

co m m erc ia l w h a li n g m o ra to riu m , th e U n it e d S t a t e s s o u g h t to

re d u c e q u o ta s on a s to c k by s to c k b a s i s .

T h ese e f f o r t s w ere re w a rd e d by a r e d u c t io n in

o v e r a l l q u o ta s o f a p p ro x im a te ly tw e lv e p e r c e n t , i f one

in c lu d e s a d ju s tm e n ts f o r th e f a c t o r y s h ip m o ra to riu m ,

th e I n d ia n O ce an s a n c t u a r y , an d th e v o lu n ta r y r e s t r a i n t s

p ro m is e d by s e v e r a l c o u n t r i e s . I am s u b m ittin g f o r th e

re c o r d a t a b l e c o m p ari n g th e new q u o ta s to th o s e e s t a b l i s h e d

s in c e 19 73.

I w as p a r t i c u l a r l y p le a s e d t h a t th e IWC a g a in

s i g n i f i c a n t l y re d u c e d sp erm w h ale q u o ta s . Th e N o rth P a c i f i c « sp erm w h ale q u o ta h a s now b e e n lo w e re d to 890 m a le s an d 0 7

fe m a le s , a l e v e l belo w th e 900 sp erm w h a le s w hic h J a p a n h a s

lo n g c la im e d to be th e minim um n e c e s s a r y to s u s t a i n i t s sp erm w h ale h a r v e s t .

M o re o v e r, o f th e 13,8 51 w h a le s w hic h may be ta k e n

t h i s n e x t y e a r , a p p ro x im a te ly 80 p e r c e n t c o n s i s t o f m in ke

w h a le s , a h e a l t h i e r an d mor e num ero us s p e c i e s o f mu ch s m a lle r w h a le s .

B. K i l l e r W hale s

At th e 3 1 s t A nnual M e e ti n g , th e IWC e s t a b l i s h e d a

f a c t o r y s h ip m o ra to riu m on a l l w h a lin g , e x c e p t f o r m in ke w h a le s . An a m b ig u it y a r o s e , h o w e v e r, r e g a r d in g w h e th e r th e m o ra to ri u m c o v e re d k i l l e r w h a le s w h ic h , a lth o u g h d e f in e d in th e S c h e d u le o f th e I n t e r n a t i o n a l C o n v e n ti o n f o r th e R e g u la ­ t i o n o f W h a li n g , w ere n o t in c lu d e d in th e q u o ta s e c t i o n o f th e S c h e d u le . L a s t y e a r th e S o v ie t U nio n to o k 916 k i l l e r w h a le s w it h f a c t o r y s h i p s . In o r d e r to c o r r e c t t h i s s i t u a ­ t i o n , th e U n it e d S t a t e s p ro p o s e d , and th e IWC a d o p te d , a

S c h e d u le am en dm en t to e li m i n a te th e ta k in g by f a c t o r y s h ip o p e r a t io n s o f k i l l e r w h a le s .

C. Humane K i l l i n g

Th e U n it e d S t a t e s s t r o n g l y s u p p o r te d a S c h e d u le am en dm en t p r o h i b i t i n g th e u se o f c o ld (n o n - e x p lo s iv e ) 8 h a rp o o n s to k i l l an y w h a le . R e c o g n iz in g a t th e m e e ti n g t h a t th e p ro p o s a l w ould f a i l i f i t w ere to ta k e im m ed ia te e f f e c t on m in ke w h a li n g o p e r a t i o n s , we s u p o o rte d an am en de d

S c h e d u le c h an g e to p r o h i b i t th e u se o f c o ld h a rp o o n s to k i l l an y s p e c ie s e x c e p t th e m in ke w h ale an d a r e s o l u t i o n to e x te n d th e p r o h i b i t i o n to m in ke w h a le s n e x t y e a r . B oth th e

S c h e d u le c h an g e an d th e r e s o l u t i o n w ere a d o p te d oy th e IWC. We w i l l p r e s s v ig o r o u s ly to a s s u r e t h a t , i f w h a li n g i s * to p e r s i s t , i t i s c a r r i e d o u t in th e m ost hu man e p o s s i b l e m an n er. •

D. A b o r ig i n a l/ S u b s is te n c e Bo wh ead W hali ng in A la sk a

As in y e a r s p a s t , th e s e t t i n g o f a bo whe ad w h ale q u o ta wa s an it e m o f c o n tr o v e r s y . The U n it e d S t a t e s s u p p lie d d o c u m e n ta ti o n te n d in g to c o n firm th e c o n c lu s io n w hic h th e

S c i e n t i f i c C om m itte e re a c h e d l a s t y e a r t h a t th e bo whe ad p o p u la tio n i s p ro b a b ly in a d e c l i n e t h a t w oul d c o n tin u e even in th e a b se n c e o f a f u r t h e r h a r v e s t . In my s ta te m e n t to th e

C om m is si on, I i n d i c a te d t h a t , a f t e r w e ig h in g a l l f a c t o r s , firm b i o l o g i c a l e v id e n c e s h o u ld be p ara m o u n t an d t h a t th e s u r v iv a l o f th e s to c k sh o u ld n o t be r i s k e d to s a t i s f y th e c u l t u r a l n e e d s o f E sk im o s, p a r t i c u l a r l y i f a l t e r n a t i v e s a re a v a i l a b l e . B ase d on th e p r e lim in a r y s c i e n t i f i c e v id e n c e , a s u s ta in e d h a r v e s t o f bo whe ad w h a le s a t c u r r e n t l e v e l s o v e r * an e x te n d e d p e r io d o f ti m e w ould e n d a n g e r th e h e rd an d w oul d 9

je o p a r d iz e th e E sk im o s' own i n t e r e s t s . Th e U n it e d S t a t e s

p ro p o se d a t r a n s i t i o n p e r io d d u rin g w hic h we c o u ld c o o p e r a te

w it h th e E sk im os in d e v e lo p in g an d s tu d y in g th e i m p l i c a t i o n s

o f mor e b i o l o g i c a l e v id e n c e , e x p lo r in g s u b s is t e n c e a l t e r n a ­

t i v e s , an d im p ro v in g h u n tin g p r a c t i c e s an d w eapons to

in c r e a s e th e e f f i c i e n c y o f th e h u n t.

• Th e C om m is si on re s p o n d e d by e s t a b l i s h i n g a t h r e e - y e a r

b lo c k q u o ta b e g in n in g in 1981 o f 45 bo whe ad w h a le s la n d e d o r

65 s t r u c k , w h ic h e v e r o c c u r s f i r s t , w it h th e maximum la n d e d * in an y one y e a r o f 17. T h is t h r e e y e a r q u o ta g r a n t s us

p a r t i a l d o m e s ti c m an ag em en t a n d , I b e l i e v e , s t r i k e s an

e q u i t a b l e b a la n c e b etw een bo whe ad p r o t e c t i o n an d Esk im o

n eed s d u rin g an in t e r i m p e r io d n eed ed to s o lv e th e p ro b le m s

a s s o c ia te d w ith th e bo whe ad h a r v e s t .

E. C u r ta ilm e n t o f No n-Mem ber W hali ng

Th e w i l l i n g n e s s o f IWC m em be rs to p ro v id e eq u ip m e n t to an d a m a rk e t f o r no n-m em ber w h a le rs h a s , in th e p a s t ,

p r e s e n te d one o f th e mor e s e r io u s o b s t a c l e s f o r e f f e c t i v e

i n t e r n a t i o n a l w h a le c o n s e r v a ti o n . Our i n s i s t e n c e t h a t su ch

s u p p o r t o f " p i r a t e w h a li n g " u n d e rm in e s th e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f

th e IWC h a s l a r g e l y stem m ed th e s e p r a c t i c e s . S i g n i f i c a n t

p r o g r e s s h a s been made in e li m i n a ti n g " f la g o f c o n v e n ie n c e "

w h a li n g v e s s e l s , an d J a p a n , a p ri m e t a r g e t o f c r i t i c i s m in

th e p a s t , h a s in c o o p e r a tio n w it h th e R e p u b li c o f K ore a 10 e s t a b l i s h e d a sy ste m o f d o c u m e n ta ti o n re q u ir e m e n ts t h a t sh o u ld e li m i n a te th e im p o r ta tio n o f w h ale m eat fr om non­ me mb er n a t i o n s . Th e C om m is si on e s t a b l i s h e d a W ork in g G ro up to exam in e a l l q u e s tio n s r e l a t i n g to w h a li n g o p e r a t io n s o u ts id e th e IWC and to r e p o r t to th e n e x t A nnual M eeti n g th o s e m e a s u re s t h a t a re a p p r o p r ia t e an d d e s i r a b l e to r e s t r i c t a c t i v i t i e s o u t s i d e th e p r e s e n t C o n v e n ti o n . Th e U n it e d

S t a t e s w i l l a rq u e b e f o r e th e W ork in g G ro up t h a t me mb er « c o u n tr ie s s h o u ld en g ag e in no a c t i v i t y t h a t le n d s s u p p o r t to p i r a t e w h a le r s . F u rth e rm o re , I w i l l c o n tin u e to re m in d « me mb er c o u n t r i e s o f th e p r o v i s io n s o f th e Pac kw ood-

M ag nu so n an d P e ll y Amen dm en ts an d o f my i n t e n t to in v o k e s a n c tio n s u n d e r th em w h en ev er i t i s a p p r o p r i a t e .

F . S m a ll C e ta c e a n s

A n o th e r it e m o f c o n tr o v e r s y r e l a t e d to w h e th e r th e

IWC h a s th e a u t h o r i t y to e s t a b l i s h an d m a in ta in a p p r o p r ia t e m an ag em en t m e a s u re s f o r a l l w h a le s , in c lu d in g th o s e t h a t a re c a l l e d s m a ll c e ta c e a n s . Th e U n it e d S t a t e s m a in ta in e d t h a t th e IWC h a s j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r sm a ll c e ta c e a n s . H ow ev er , th e c o m p le x it y o f th e sm a ll c e ta c e a n p ro b le m , in v o lv in g th e is s u e s o f j u r i s d i c t i o n , a b o r i g i n a l w h a lin g , an d c o a s t a l s t a t e s ' r i g h t s , le d to an im p asse on t h i s is s u e .

The IWC d id , h o w e v e r, a d o p t a r e s o l u t i o n s u p p o r tin g th e S c i e n t i f i c C o m m it te e 's m an d ate to m o n ito r th e p o p u la tio n 11

s t a t u s o f a l l w h a le s an d ma ke a p p r o p r ia t e re c o m m e n d a ti o n s,

and deferred the resolution of the jurisdictional question

to subsequent meetings.

I I . U n fin is h e d B u s in e s s

Th e U n it e d S t a t e s d id n o t a c c o m p li s h a l l t h a t we had

w is h e d , an d o u r u n f in is h e d b u s in e s s p r o v id e s an ag en d a to

guide our efforts into the future.

A. C om m erc ia l M o ra to ri u m w

As n o te d , l a s t y e a r th e IWC a d o p te d a m o ra to riu m on

factory ship operations in all oceans and for all species

e x c e p t th e m in ke w h a le . T h is m o ra to riu m f a l l s s h o r t o f o u r

g o a l to h a l t a l l c o m m e rc ia l w h a lin g . Th e U n it e d S t a t e s

continues to believe that the IWC conservation program is

in a d e q u a te to m an ag e w h a le s w ith o u t s u b j e c ti n g th em to

unacceptable risks. While we will continue to have difficulty

in o b ta i n in g th e v o te s o f 3 /4 o f th e IWC mem be rs f o r a

moratorium, the United States w ill continue to support this

goal as the cornerstone of our whaling policy.

B. Sper m W ha le M o ra to ri u m

In th e a b se n c e o f a co m m erc ia l w h a li n g m o ra to riu m ,

the United States will continue to promote an indefinite

m o ra to ri u m on th e ta k in g o f sp erm w h a le s . Th e la c k o f sp er m

• whale data provides a prime example of deficiencies resulting 12 in an i n a b i l i t y to e s tim a te a c c u r a t e ly s to c k ab u n d an ce o r to d e v e lo p b i o l o g i c a l l y m e a n in g fu l m o d e ls . Th e in a d e q u a c y o f th e a v a i l a b l e a n a l y s i s fo r S o u th e rn H em is p h ere sp er m w h a le s re m a in s so s e v e r e t h a t , ev en in l i g h t o f th e wor k w hic h h a s been c a r r i e d o u t s in c e th e l a s t S c i e n t i f i c C om m it te e M e e ti n g , we c o n tin u e to b e li e v e i t i s in a p p r o p r ia te an d u n w is e to p e rm it an y c o m m e rc ia l w h a li n g on th e s e s t o c k s .

C. S tr e n g th e n e d D ata R e q u ir e m e n ts

A y e a r a g o , th e U n it e d S t a t e s p ro p o se d a S c h e d u le * ch ange t h a t w ould have p r o h i b it e d w h a li n g by v e s s e l s t h a t f a i l to su b m it d a ta r e q u ir e d by th e C o m m is sio n. T h a t i n i t i a t i v e d id n o t s u c c e e d . T h is y e a r we a g a in p r e s s e d f o r t h i s m e a su re a n d , a lt h o u g h th e S c h e d u le ch an g e was n o t a d o p te d , th e C om m is si on ap p ro v e d a r e s o l u t i o n re g a r d in g s u b m is s io n o f d a ta w hic h we w i l l c a r r y fo rw a rd a s a p r e c e d e n t in o u r co m m itm en t to im p ro v in g th e d a ta a v a i l a b l e to th e

S c i e n t i f i c C o m m it te e.

D. R e v is io n s to th e New M an ag em en t P ro c e d u r e s

At th e A nnual M e e ti n g , th e C om m is si on e s t a b l i s h e d a

W ork in g G ro up to d e v e lo p s p e c i f i c p r o p o s a ls to r e v i s e th e

New M an ag em en t P ro c e d u re in a c c o rd a n c e w it h th e re co m m en da ­ t i o n s o f th e S p e c ia l S c i e n t i f i c W ork in g G ro up c h a rg e d w ith * c o n s id e r in g r e v i s e d m an ag em en t p r i n c i p l e s . T h ese re co m m en da­ t i o n s in c lu d e c h a n g e s t h a t th e U n it e d S ta t e s h as p ro p o s e d , « 13

an d w ould n o t o n ly e f f e c t i v e l y p h a se o u t th o s e w h a li n g

o p e r a t io n s t h a t r e f u s e to p ro v id e r e q u i r e d d a t a , b u t a ls o lo w e r q u o ta s p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y to th e u n c e r t a i n t y o f e x i s t i n g

know le dge a b o u t s p e c i f i c w h ale s t o c k s . In th e a b se n c e o f a

m o ra to riu m , we m ust m a in ta in o u r e f f o r t s to r e v i s e th e New

M an ag em en t P ro c e d u re so t h a t i t r e f l e c t s th e c u r r e n t s t a t e o f s c i e n t i f i c kn o w le d g e a n d , j u s t a s im p o r ta n tly , so t h a t i t

r e q u i r e s c o n s e r v a ti v e a c t i o n wh en t h a t know le dge i s in a d e q u a te .

I l l . C o n c lu sio n

A m eri can s p r o f o u n d ly c a r e a b o u t w h ale p r o t e c t i o n , an d t h e i r m an d ate to us h a s b een an d w i l l c o n tin u e to be d is c h a r g e d d i l i g e n t l y an d s t r e n u o u s l y .

We s h a l l re m a in firm in o u r co m m itm en t to p u rs u e e f f e c t i v e w h a le c o n s e r v a ti o n .

Tha nk y o u . I w ould be p le a s e d to a n sw er an y q u e s tio n s yo u may h a v e .

08-796 0 —80----2

6 /

0

0

0

0

I TO I

l(N)

701 701 5 /

529

006 3/

090 4 /

12 th 12

1.361

(1 90 0)

7.07 2

2.55 4

Nee11 ng Nee11

J J 300

14,523

14 ,5 23 (1 3 .0 5 1 )0 /

0

0 0

0

00

604

j

479

264

273 100

1.35 0 4 /

1,3 61

I

1 1

(1 979)

8, 10 2

31 th

Mee tin g

2.5 43

15 .656

15^ 655

apply quotas

to

through A p ri l of

0

0

0

0

0

455

454

400

605 605

04 04

3.0 00 4 / 1 .055 1

3, 02 0

2.5 52

11 97 0)

6,22 1 30 th

Mee tin g

19 .526

18.525

0

0

0

0

771

459

400

524

605 84 84

sperm wh ales in th e North P a c if ic

1,37 0

1,33 9

5,1 05

4, 53 0

( i U H

5,6 90

Meeting

29 ih

2.5 5 5

23,5 20

71.320

fo r the In Spa -P o rtu g a l- B rit is h Is le s

th e 304 wh ales perm itte d to be

annual li m it o f 24 0. Ih e li m it

fo r

0 0

0

0

132 132

455 455

605

541

r.97

1 ,8 6 ) 1.00 0

3,09 4

4.3 20

2,0 0 0

0,9 00

Mee tIn g 28 lh

2.4 03

20.0 50

20 ,0 50

f i r s t , a l l whal in g

fe m al es . Once the qu ota In males and females o r 11 .5

The The Commission dec ided a t the 32nd Mee tin g

whalin g season (December o f ye ar o f mee tin g

0 0

0

365 365

220 2 /

......

1, 35 8

......

1,36 3

(WM

3, 10 0

2.5 5 0

5,2 00

5.3 70

2,2 30

6.8 10

4,0 70

Meetin g

27th

33 ,9 36

37J78

0

300

......

......

1, 00 0 2 /

......

......

7, 00 0 2 /

(1 974)

4.0 0 0 ?/ 5 . 173

6,0 00 5,0 00

8,0 00

2,0 0 0

26(li 4,0 0 0

Mee tin g

42 ,4 73

37 ,3 00

0

th

550

5

1.—INTERNA TIO NA L WH ALINGCOMM ERCIALQU OTAS, 1975-80

......

......

1.4 50 2 /

......

3, 00 0

4.5 0 0 2 /

5.0 0 0 } /

4,0 00

6.0 00

8,0 00

n s n r

Mee tIn g

5.0 0 0 2

37,500

45.6 73

J k t Z l

BLE

TA

n n the ye ar in which th ey beg in.

a l l coa sta l seasons o f ye ar a f t e r mee tin g,

it the IWC annual mee tin g ar e fo r A n ta rc ti c

((. m a le )

(em f aIe)

A tlan tic

taken fro m the f . Gr eenlan d Ic el and st ock . Th is fi g u re als o includes a li m it of 240

sl oc k fow r hic h the 32nd Mee tin g se t a 1900-19 81 combined li m it o f 440 w it h a maximum

lh ls fi g u re in clu des a per w is sab le byc alch o f up to 11 .5 per ce nt

In dia n Ocean San ctua ry .

o iig in a lly set fo r 1900 and r e fl e c te d in th e column fo r th e 31 st Mee tin g was 143.

Of Of th is fig u re , the Government o f Ic ela nd has sta te d It s In te n tio n no t to ta ke 50 o f

to wtial Ing seasons I

fo llo w in g ye ar) and

must must ce as e.

per ce nt of the qu ota in fem ales has been ta ken , which ev er occ urs

Catch li m it cover in g A n ta rc ti c ca tc h only (Sou th o f 40 la ti tu d e ) .

Il f th is fig u re . 622 whales can no t he taken le g a ll y by member co u n tr ie s becaus e o f the fa c to ry sh ip m ora to riu m and/o r the

Quotas e s ta b lis h ed i

Sel

(It yde* (It S

O th er 7 /

/ / Whales taken by IWC n a ti o n s , bu t no t In cl uded in qu ot as .

6 / lh ls fi g u re Is fo r m ale s, and th ere is a ie ro qu ota fo r fe males .

5 /

3/

1/

4 /

2 /

10IAL

10 1 At 10 1

1 in 1

Se| Sel and Oryde*s

Sperm Sperm (m al e) 1 in 1

( In

Speim (m ale)

So uthe rn Hem isph ere Sei

llo» llo» ll i

Worth P a c if ic

Minke COMMERCIAL (JIIOIAS COMMERCIAL

Oryde*S

Spe im

Min ke t t | „ u 15 Mr. Bonker. Thank you for both your representations as the U.S. Commissioner at the Whaling Commission meeting and for your preparation and submission of this report today. I would like to announce for the record the arrival of the newest member of the Foreign Affairs Committee and of my own subcom­ mittee, Congressman Berkley Bedell, who represents a district in Iowa. He has long been interested in international issues, and will be a grea t addition to our subcommittee as long as you continue to support the chairman of the subcommittee. Mr. Frank, as you know, both the President and the Congress are on record very strongly in favor of putting an end to commer­ cial whaling. So we rather expect our representation at IWC ses­ sions to emphasize that position and to pursue it not only in terms of the issues before the Commission but throu gh the tactical and procedural means of achieving those goals; to have a vigorous, active representation at Commission meetings. We continually get word back from some of the NGO representa­ tives that our representation has been less th an vigorous, less th an active. I picked up one quote from a publication sponsored by the Friends of the Earth and other non-Government organizations which said the following: 1980 will be remembered as the yea r when the IWC was unable to decide when a whale was a whale. It will also be remembered as the yea r when the very fut ure of the Commission was placed stro ngly on the rocks. Pretty strong indictment. Do you agree with that or do you think we made significant progress? And do you thin k the U.S. leader­ ship, which, I think, reflects on your position as U.S. Commission­ er, has been vigorous enough to achieve the goal all of us want in putting an end to commercial whaling? Mr. F rank. First, with respect to our achievements, I have listed them in my testimony. I th ink they are significant even though the absolute numbers of reduction are less this year than we had last year. I believe they are, however, in some respects even more significant because each whale is of g reat significance to the whal­ ing countries and we have reached a level of whaling where the whaling countries may decide they simply should get out of whal­ ing. I would expect in 1 or 2 years, because of the steps taken in the last couple of years, that this result will come about with most whaling countries, if not all. So I do not think we ought to mini­ mize accomplishments this year. Second, with respect to the quote you mentioned, I would sub­ scribe to the problem that the Commission has not decided what a whale is and is not calling a whale a whale. This refers to the small cetacean issue where some argued small whales were not covered by the IWC. We very strongly argued they were covered by the IWC and that remains our position. We were unable to succeed in that position, not because of the size of the whales, but because of a variety of issues raised by that subject, in particular the 200-mile-zone concept. The result was tha t there were too many negative votes for the Commission to adopt a schedule amendment making clear that small cetaceans are covered by the Convention. Rath er than being defeated on tha t issue, we did achieve a compromise which didn’t go as far as we would like. I am disap- 16 pointed in that. However, I th ink if there had been a vote, possibly a majority of the countries would have voted against us, not be­ cause they are against whales but because of the jurisdictional implications of tha t vote. As to the question of leadership, we have given the best leader­ ship that we can. It is true that other countries have emerged as leaders, also. One could question whether tha t is good or bad. In the past, the United States proposed virtually all of the resolutions and all of the schedule changes. Other countries were not as vocal as we were. It has been our policy to encourage other countries to assume some of the leadership. I think we can be more effective tha t way. Countries which used to be whaling countries like Australia are now conservation countries, and we a re encouraging leadership by Australia. New countries have joined like the Seychelles. We are encouraging membership by them. In some of the cases we did all the drafting work and gave those drafts to other countries so they could introduce them and there would be a broader front. The alternative is simply for the United States to do all the talking and assume all the leadership. I think that would not have been successful. We have to remember on this issue that some countries tha t engage in whaling believe they are perfectly justified in doing so. They believe their science is correct as opposed to the science we subscribe to. The United States simply cannot impose its view on these countries, or a t least not as quickly as many of us would like. I do think we will succeed and I do not thin k the fact that we have not succeeded thus far has to do with leadership but rather the interests, and in some cases legitimate interests of other coun­ tries. In one sense we may be leading in the right direction. Even those countries that have wanted a moratorium—for example, Aus­ tralia, a staunch ally of ours—are concerned about an immediate moratorium because an immediate moratorium would create eco­ nomic problems for the whaling countries. Countries like Australia and even the Seychelles this year were interested in a phaseout. I think we are achieving the phaseout whether we call it that or not. I think we are doing the best we can. It is my hope that our policies will succeed no late r tha n perhaps 2 years from now. Mr. B onker. I posed the question of leadership not to reflect necessarily on your role as chairman of the U.S. delegation, but this subcommittee also oversees human rights issues and the U.N. Commission on Human Rights. We have seen in the past where less th an inspired leadership from the U.S. delegation has resulted in less positive action by the U.N. Commission on Human Rights. Last year for the first time we had a dynamic, forceful chairm an of the delegation and we were far more effective both in terms of the tactics and strategy involved in achieving our ends, much of which involves a broader base as we confront these issues, as well as some of the results of the Commission, itself. A lot of that has to come over a period of time, just through a series of contacts and work. Oftentimes it is a matter of just being on top of the issues, knowing where the votes are. For instance, on the sperm whaling moratorium issue, if one country which voted “no” had voted “yes”, the moratorium would have passed. Canada 17 and Spain were seen to be swing votes. As to opportunities like tha t, is it possible to bring countries like that around? Are they fairly entrenched in the ir positions? If they are possible swing votes, does the United States have influence with countries like Spain and Canada? Mr. F rank. First, Mr. Chairman, with respect to the question of leadership, if there is a problem with leadership in our delegation, I assume tha t responsibility fully. The other Government members of the delegation I think have been excellent. I am referring to individuals not only from NOAA but those from the Department of State, Department of the Interior, CEQ and the Marine Mammal Commission. They have given me very substantial support in terms * of the amount of work they have done, the energies they have devoted, and the wisdom that has come from them on this issue. So I compliment them, and if there is any failing, it should be addressed to me. * Mr. Bonker. I didn’t w ant to imply there is a failing, Dick. I was tryin g to contrast the difference in the U.N. Commission on Human Rights from one year to the next in terms of our leader­ ship. Oftentimes the United States can be influential. I think it has in many instances on this issue. But my comments in no way were meant to reflect upon your abilities as leader of the delegation. Mr. Frank. Thank you. You raised the issue of Spain and Canada in connection with the sperm whale vote. Those countries voted against us on many issues in addition to the sperm whale. Yes, we do have some influence with them. The Secretary of Commerce did mention the subject of whaling to a Minister from Canada before the meeting in an at ­ tempt to convince Canada to subscribe to our positions. I held meetings with representatives from Canada and from Spain. The problem with respect to Spain is that it is a whaling coun­ try, and it wishes to continue to whale. It believes whales are like fish and it has a right to harvest the resources of the sea. While we can attempt to convince them that they are wrong, that it is not in the ir interest to whale, that the whale populations are in jeopardy, and that therefore they should stop whaling, they are a sovereign, independent country and we cannot tell them w hat to do. With respect to Canada, while it is not now a whaling country, it 0 has a philosophy which is strongly against such things as moratori­ um on the harvesting of any resources such as whales. It was very explicit on that. Canada voted against us on almost every issue because of that * philosophy. I don’t know whether we can turn that very strong philosophy around. We will try. But again, Canada, although our sister to the north, is an independent country and has every right to express and vote for its views. Mr. Bonker. Mr. Hall. Mr. H all. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Frank, as I understand it, the U.S. delegation was instructed to vote for the Scientific Committee’s recommendation of the lowest quota on all individual commercial catch limits. My ques­ tion is: In regard to the Spain-Portugal-British Isles stock, why didn’t the United States object to the 1980 quota of 220 whales? 18

Mr. Frank. I believe, Mr. Hall, that you probably are referring to the 1981 quota of 220. Let me summarize what happened in connection with tha t subject. The quota for sperm whales was 143 for 1980. The Scientific Committee recommended 220 for 1981 and the issue primarily fo­ cused on was 1981. Again, the Scientific Committee did recommend 220 and our instructions were to vote with the Scientific Commit­ tee. We did, however, have a significant problem with Spain. First, Spain had objected to the quota of 143. When a country objects it means that the country can engage in that whaling it wants to engage in. So that Spanish whaling was unregulated for 1980. Aside from that, it is my view, and I thin k a view shared by the delegation, that it is very unfortunate to have an objection because if one country like Spain objects, then other countries will be prompted to do the same. We were, therefore, very anxious to get rid of that objection. We had an issue with respect to Spain of observers. Spain would not agree to a quota for 1981, and it had the votes to block a quota for 1981 of below 220. We would have voted for the smaller quotas except they would not have succeeded. What that would have meant with respect to 1980 and 1981 is th at there would have been an unregulated hun t for Spain. Since the Scientific Committee indicated 220 was an adequate number, we subscribed to tha t ultimately. It was not our prefer­ ence. The way that came out, by the way, was 440 for 2 years with a maximum of 240 for any one year. But the average then was 220 for each year. We would have preferred a lower number. We would have preferred for Spain not to object. However, Spain did agree in retu rn for the votes it got, and it got votes from a large number of conservation countries, it did agree to withdraw its objection and it agreed to a number of other desires that we had. Mr. Hall. Did you ask for a rollcall on this quota? Mr. F rank. I can supply tha t for the record as to whether there was a vote. It is my recollection there was, although to be honest I can’t remember now each vote th at took place. [Subsequently the following information was provided for the record:] The vote on the S pan ish/Br itish Isles stock of fin whales was as follows: The Commission adopted a quota of 220 whales for 1980 unanimously. The Technical Committee recommendation of 143 whales for 1981 was 12 in favor, 7 opposed, and 5 abstention. The vote on a proposed quota of 240 whales for 1981 was 6 in favor, 15 opposed, and 3 abstentions. Mr. F rank. We did have two sets of meetings. We did meet with Commissioners. There were a number of votes when the Commis­ sioners met. We found out whether or not there would be a block­ ing vote on t ha t subject. I may be able to get you tha t information while we are here at this hearing because we have some of those records. It is my recollection that there was a vote one way or another which indicated we could not have gotten what we wanted; tha t is, Spain had a block. By the way, when Spain has a block on that issue it can go one of two ways. One is simply not to have a quota, which means an unregulated hunt. The other is to get the lowest possible quota which we subscribed to and that was in our instructions. 19 I received communications from Members of Congress at Brigh­ ton during the meeting which said tha t the most important issue was to prevent an unregulated hunt, and we should seek th e lowest possible quotas but get a regulated hunt. And we did comply with tha t request. 1 Mr. Bonker. Would the gentleman yield for the moment? Mr. Hall. I would be glad to. Mr. B onker. Dick, several times you referred to receiving instructions, the instructions coming from the State Department or Department of Commerce, as they relate to the bowhead whale, from the Interior Department or from someone in the White House. Generally, do those instructions come from a single depart­ ment or official? Mr. F rank. N o, sir. They are instructions which ultimately are approved by the Secretary of State as the one who has responsibili­ ty for foreign affairs, but they are instructions worked out in an interagency group. In most instances, maybe every instance, in terms of the instructions for this meeting, there was a consensus of all of the agencies. Mr. B onker. But it is the Department of State that communi­ cates those instructions to you? Mr. Frank. Yes, sir, that is correct. Mr. B onker. Are they often based on your recommendations, could they consult with you before hand? Mr. F rank. Absolutely. What we do is have the interagency meetings. I make the recommendations and then the Secretary of State formally approves. I might add, it is not only members of the Government involved in formulating those instructions. Those issues for some 6 or 8 months before the meeting are discussed at meetings where we invite Americans including members of your staff to attend the meetings and to express their views and in many instances the instructions represent the consensus not only of the Government but of those private organizations interested in this subject. Mr. Bonker. Mr. Hall. Mr. H all. Apparently the United States voted twice in favor of 890 sperm whale quotas for the western division of the Northern Pacific stock when the scientific and technical committees recom­ mended a zero quota for this stock. How did tha t happen, when the committees recommended zero and the United States voted twice in favor of an 890 sperm whale quota? Mr. F rank. The committee did recommend zero. The reason tha t the committee is concerned about the killing of sperm whales is because of the inadequacy of the information on sperm whales to know whether the stock can sustain such a harvest. We did have earlier votes where it became clear that Jap an could block the zero quota and that Japan could block quotas below 890. Because of that, the alternatives were eith er an unregulated hunt or a hunt of 890. Jap an had indicated informally that even if there were an unregulated hunt, it would limit the hunt, but to a figure that I believe was in the 1,200 or 1,300 range. So we had a

1 The communications in question urged the U.S. delegation to gain a quota on the bowhead hunt, stressing the implications that an unregulated bowhead hunt would have for attempts to secure the lowest quotas on commercial catches. 20 choice of, on the one hand, an unregulated hun t which might end up to be 1,200 or 1,300, or on the other hand, a hun t of 890. We discussed this among the conservation countries and the majority of them believed that we should limit Jap an to 890 even though that was not our preference. There were two votes on t ha t issue because there was a side dialog between Australia and Jap an on the issue of size of the whales tha t could be caught. Australia ultimately prevailed on tha t subject and we were able then to vote on it. Australia voted in favor of the 890. It is a very conservation- oriented country. Several of the other conservation-oriented coun­ tries also did. The only thing I can say as to the 890 is tha t the alternative was an unregulated hunt. Mr. H all. What I don’t understand is how a committee can set a quota of zero and the conservation countries can arrive at 890. How do you arrive at a number like 890? Mr. F rank. First, we do te st the wind on zero. There was a vote on zero, which was 14 in favor, the United States voting in favor, and 7 against. You need a three-quarters majority. It became clear we could not get a zero vote. Mr. H all. Did you test the vote on, let’s say, 200, 300, 400. Mr. F rank. We did test the vote on 400. There was a meeting of Commissioners at that point and the vote was tested on 400, a proposal by the United Kingdom. That vote also did not succeed. We asked some members of the scientific committee to come in at tha t point. I believe it was the chairman of the scientific com­ mittee and several of his colleagues, who then discussed if we were to have a number, what number would be logical from a scientific point of view. I forget the specific rationale, but they did indicate that some of the signs did point in the direction of approximately these numbers. It was not exactly 890 but it was within 100 of 890. That was grabbed hold of by some of the conservation countries as a number which would be lower than we thought we could o ther­ wise get. Therefore, we decided to band together and to try to get that number. Mr. H all. So you did test the wind by startin g at zero and then going to 400 and then arriv ing eventually at 890? Mr. Frank. That is correct Mr. H all. Now, one last question. Taiwan is not a member of the IWC, is that correct? Mr. Frank. Correct. Mr. H all. H ow do you monitor, how do you regulate a country such as this if they are not a member? What do you do in tha t particular case? Mr. F rank. You have raised one of the more vexing questions we have had over the last few years; that is, whaling by nonmember countries or entities such as Taiwan. We, and by we I mean all of those who are interested in whale conservation, have been successful in doing away with a large amount of pirate whaling. In some cases forceful means have been used. The Sierra, for example, which was a whaling vessel, is apparently out of commission, as are other vessels tha t whaled under flags of convenience. The United States proposed several ways in which this kind of whaling could be stopped or at least reduced. We made several 21 proposals before the IWC. One of those proposals is that no IWC member will import whale meat from any nonmember. If you then can implement that effectively, you can prevent a place like Taiwan from sending whale meat, for example, to Jap an which is the ir main market. The Japanese have come a long way. I believe 5 years ago they were allowing substantial amounts of nonmember whale meat to come in. I think they are making a good faith effort now to stop tha t meat and indeed are largely successful in stopping it. We understand one of the problems Taiwan is now facing is because it is unable to export its meat, it has it stored in ware­ houses and can’t get rid of it. The other problem of transshipment, some was going to Korea, which had become a member, was then being transshipped to Jap an. We hope we have closed that loop­ hole. There are several means of curtailing nonmember whaling. We have had discussions with Taiwan telling them of consequences that could come about as a result of U.S. domestic law if they don’t end whaling. As a result, they gave us in Jun e a substantial number of facts which we would use as evidence in making a determination. We will hold further discussions with them. Our effort has been to convince them to stop whaling. It is my hope tha t those discussions will prove successful. If they do not prove successful, domestic legal mechanisms can be invoked. At that point I am convinced that Taiwan will stop whaling because it will conclude that the harm from continuing to whale outweighed the benefits of whaling. Mr. H all. Tha t is all the questions I have, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Bonker. Thank you, Mr. Hall. Mr. Frank, let’s discuss aboriginal and subsistence whaling for a moment. I th ink that poses something of an embarrassment for the United States. We have discussed this at length, both in previous subcommittee hearings and j ust informally. It is difficult for us to call for an end to commercial whaling on the one hand and to defend subsistence whaling on the other as it pertains to the bowhead species in the Bering Sea. My first ques­ tion is based on at least one report I see here from the technical committee. It is a recommendation from Australia on the increas­ ing importance of aboriginal subsistence whaling, that perhaps the Commission ought to develop appropriate management principles and guidelines for subsistence catches parallel to those reflected in the Commission’s guidelines on commercial whaling. Is the United States promoting any management guidelines or principles, or at least a distinction between subsistence whaling and commercial whaling so that we can approach these two sub­ jects in a more rational way? Mr. F rank. Yes, Mr. Chairman. We proposed 2 years ago that the re be a special management regime for subsistence whaling. We have produced several documents on that subject. We asked that several meetings be convened, one of which was convened by us. We have proposed a specific management regime. We subscribe to 22 Australia’s view th at there should be a separate regime, so we will support Australia along those lines. I might say that our position on bowheads has less impact than a lot of people have claimed on our position on commercial whaling. There is a difference between subsistence whaling and commercial whaling. Commercial whaling involves thousands of whales while subsistence whaling involves a small number of whales. Mr. B onker. But, of course, you have to consider it by species because the bowhead, for instance, is nearer to extinction than other species. Mr. F rank. That is absolutely true. Interestingly enough, it is not aboriginal whaling but commercial whaling which put the bowhead stock in its present position. In the latter part of the 19th • century, commercial whaling, where thousands of bowhead whales were killed, led to there being a stock of 2,200 to 2,300 whales. The Eskimos have lived in harmony with that for generations. So it is not their fault. * There is a difference between living off the land and engaging in a commercial enterprise. Even the Commission has considered these two differently. The Commission has not regulated subsist­ ence whaling, they have regulated commercial whaling. There is a legal issue as to whether aboriginal is covered in the convention. Some have argued it is not. We have argued it is covered. Some take a different position. Mr. B onker. What does the U.S. delegation do when both the scientific and the technical committees recommend zero catch? Mr. F rank. The scientific committee did on scientific grounds recommend a zero catch. It has in the past indicated that other considerations may be taken into account and what it has meant and what the Commission has done is to take into account the subsistence or cultural need of the individuals. That is when you come to----- Mr. Bonker. Is it not true the scientific committee is supposed to make recommendations based solely on statistical considerations? Maybe the technical committee will look at the broader issues. Mr. F rank. That is correct, that is the way it happens. The scientific committee has said from a biological point of view if you were treating subsistence whaling in the same way you tre at com­ mercial whaling, then you should have a zero quota amount, but it is recognized there may be other factors. 4 Mr. Bonker. There is a lack of, then, a separate set of guidelines, principles? Mr. F rank. That is correct, that is a problem, I agree with you on that. I agree with Australia on that. w Mr. Bonker. We have had several discussions on the bowhead. I think the fact tha t Under Secretary of the Interior James Joseph appeared before the subcommittee meeting on May 20, and made such a strong case on behalf of th e Eskimos, tha t this is a pretty important issue within the administration. It probably has far more political significance than it does statistical significance. I am wondering whether the studies that are under way now will present us with some basis for future action at the IWC? I have heard of a t least one study that was concluded, and now another study is under way. Is the re a timetable? Can you give us any 23 indication as to when these studies will be concluded and will confirm the proposition? Mr. F rank. They are of several kinds of studies we are involved with. We are doing more on the subject of subsistence and cultural needs of the Eskimos. We have a scientific study on the status of the stock which was very preliminary when we submitted it to the IWC. It is now being subjected to peer review and, in particular, review by Eskimos and scientists they choose. We are undertaking a significant study on the question of alternatives. Mr. Bonker. Alternatives? Mr. F rank. Alternatives for the Eskimos to bowhead whale hunting. Mr. Bonker. You mean alternativ es, other forms of subsistence? Mr. F rank. That is correct, other forms, gray whales, walrus, seals, caribou, both for subsistence and to satisfy the cultural need. Mr. B onker. Well, if I recall, and I cannot put my finger on exactly what our rationale was, it seems to me we stated there were essentially two reasons why we could not proceed to accept the scientific committee’s recommendation. In one instance, the Eskimos would simply not adhere to the quotas or at least a determination on bowhead catch, and that in 1981, the adm inistra­ tion may be coming forth with more specific recommendations. I can’t recall exactly when that occurred. I think in some minutes on comments that you had made on the subject before the IWC plena­ ry session. Mr. F rank. We will be doing additional studies, coming forward with additional recommendations. Mr. B onker. But, Mr. Frank, we have been engaged in these studies for some time. My question is that at some point do we bring them to an end so tha t we at least have a fresh look at the issue or are the studies going to be ongoing? And in 1981, when you or someone else appears before this subcommittee and I raise the subject of bowhead, th at it is still not a subject of continuing study? Mr. F rank. We will finish the studies and I can give you the deadlines on when they are to be completed. One kind of study one continues with, even though you reach certain conclusions, is a study of the stock itself, the population dynamics. That is not something one can do over a short period of time. Keep in mind we do have a 3-year quota from the IWC. Tha t quota provides the opportunity for a phasedown of whaling by the Eskimos and a transition. What we had indicated to the IWC was that we felt that contin­ ued whaling at levels the same as the 1980 level could not be sustained by the herd if our scientific evidence was correct. We were going to look at that scientific evidence to see whe ther we could confirm that it was correct and we were going to provide for the transition. I thin k we can provide the alternativ es. I think we can Firm up our scientific evidence. There remains the question of whether the Eskimos will agree with our position. Mr. Bonker. I guess it depends on what your position is. Mr. F rank. Our position thus far as stated is t hat the bowhead stock cannot sustain hunts of levels that we have had in the past, that we will have to reduce those growth quotas, and we are en route to doing that. At the same time we have an obligation to the 24 Eskimos to find alternatives for their cultural and subsistence needs. Mr. B onker. I am going to have to vote. I am going to have to recess the subcommittee for 10 minutes. We will be submitting questions to you in written form. 1 Mr. F rank. Thank you. May I just conclude by saying one thing. The success we have had has been due in large part to the support we have gotten from Congress, in particular this committee, and in particu lar you. Sev­ eral Members of Congress have come to Commission meetings in the past and made the ir views well known not only to our delega­ tion but to other delegations. We appreciate very much your in­ volvement in this subject. Mr. Bonker. Thank you for your kind remarks and your appear­ ance today, and also the fine work you are doing as the Commis­ sioner for the United States. Mr. F rank. Thank you. Mr. Bonker. The subcommittee is recessed for 10 minutes. [Whereupon a brief recess was taken.] Mr. Bonker. The subcommittee will reconvene. We will now hea r from a panel of nongovernment organization representatives: Craig Van Note, the executive vice president of the Monitor consortium; Christine Stevens, secretary of the Society for Animal Protective Legislation; and Patricia Forkan, vice presi­ dent for program and communications of the Humane Society of the United States. Welcome. I believe we will start with Craig Van Note. All three of these representatives, I assume, were participants at the recent IWC Conference in Brighton, England. Again, I regret not being the re as p art of the delegation. I am looking forward to what you have to say this afternoon. Craig, why don’t you start? Christine, we will the n move to you. Pat, you can be the anchor person. STATEMENT OF CRAIG VAN NOTE, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDE NT, THE MONITOR CONSORTIUM Mr. Van N ote. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As executive vice president of the Monitor consortium, I am testifying on behalf of the Center for Enviro nmental Education, the Fund for Animals, Greenpeace U.S., International Fund for Animal Welfare, American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Ani- 4 mals, Friends of Whales, Birmingham Marine Animal Protection Society, Washington Humane Society, Friends of Wildlife, Ameri­ can Cetacean Society, and Defenders of Wildlife. Mr. B onker. I s that Washington Humane Society, Washington w State or District of Columbia? Mr. Van N ote. District of Columbia. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before this committee today. We are especially grateful to you, Mr. Bonker, for holding this series of oversight hearings this year on U.S. policy on whaling and the status of whales. The strong leadership by you and your colleagues in Congress over the past decade has been instrum ental in forcing the whaling

‘Se e app . 1, p. 83. 25 nations to reduce substantially the rate of killing of these extraor­ dinary marine mammals. Indeed, if Congress had not passed the Marine Mammal Protec­ tion Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Pelly amendment and the Packwood/Magnuson amendment, the great whales would probably still be dying in record numbers and the whaling nations would be thumbing the ir noses at the warnings of scientists and the outrage of public opinion. In the absence of stron g leadership from the administration, it is vital for the Congress to continue to voice its strong opposition to commercial whaling and to pressure the administration to imple­ ment the legislation passed by Congress to protect the grea t whales. This oversight hearing is especially timely, coming ju st 6 weeks afte r this yea r’s IWC meeting. I would characterize this hearing as a post mortem, because thousands of whales were condemned to die for shortsighted greed and as the resu lt of the spinelessness of several nonwhaling nations. We should use this hearing to examine what went wrong and begin here and now to reassert a strong whale conservation policy in the United States. The major whale conservation proposals at this y ear’s IWC meet­ ing failed. The full moratorium was blocked by the whaling nations, orga­ nized assiduously by the Japanese. The moratorium on the killing of sperm whales was defeated, too, in the face of overwhelming evidence t ha t this species has been overexploited and is in decline. This moratorium lost by a single vote—Canada’s. It was the only nonwhaling nation to oppose the sperm whale moratorium. The IWC failed to adopt the zero quota on sperm whales in the North Pacific. I will refer to tha t later. The Whaling Commission virtu ally ignored the many flag rant infractions of quotas by the member nations, violations that amounted to more than 1,500 whales. The failure to require sanc­ tions—such as quota reductions equal to the infractions—rewards the cheaters and will only encourage more subversion of the IWC. A consequence of the U.S. desertion of its whale conservation leadership is lack of cohesion and coordination between the major­ ity of IWC nations that support an end to all commercial whaling. There has been little sign of common purpose in recent meetings. The United States, which once led major lobbying efforts to reduce whale quotas, has shown little enthusiasm in recent years. This stands in marked contrast to Japan. In fact, the major U.S. effort since the December 1977 IWC meeting has been to gain high quotas of bowhead whales for the Eskimos in the face of una ni­ mous opposition by the Scientific Committee of the IWC. The whalers have taken advantage of th is compromised position to effectively neutralize the United States on most whaling issues. This year, it appeared that the Commerce and State Depart­ ments spent an inordinate amou nt of time putting pressure on the leading conservation nations—Australia, Netherlands, France, and 26 Seychelles—to lessen the ir opposition to high bowhead whale quotas. The vacuum created by the United States has also resulted in a loss of influence over several IWC nations tha t have close econom­ ic, political and military ties with the United States. In particular, South Korea and Chile, although they have small whaling oper­ ations, should be amenable to U.S. persuasion on many whaling issues t hat do not impact the ir interests. Instead, they are lined up solidly in the Japanese camp. South Africa no longer hun ts whales, but it is more often than not siding with the whalers or abstaining on key votes. Japan and the Soviet Union are leaning on the South Africans; the United States isn’t. The most appalling lapse of U.S. influence was with Canada’s opposition to both the full moratorium and the sperm whale mora­ torium. It appears almost inconceivable that the U.S. Government could not have persuaded Canada to support, at the least, the sperm whale moratorium. The proposal failed, 14 to 6, for the lack of a single vote. Canada was the only nonwhaling nation to oppose the moratorium. A little judicious diplomacy with Prime Minister Trudeau could have insured the survival of more tha n 1,300 sperm whales next yea r—and perhaps many thousands more in futu re years if the moratorium is blocked again. Two developments over the past year dictated the unsuccessful outcome of the July IWC meeting. First, Japan launched a concerted campaign by both government and industry to twist arms, buy influence and propagandize around the world. The Japanese succeeded in forming a hard-core bloc of whaling nations to defeat any undesirable proposals at the IWC. Economic and political pressure was used to keep the other whaling nations in line. Chile, for example, was influenced to vote down the line with Japan with the thr eat of loss of a lobster-fishery development plan along the Chilean coast. Similar pressures were brought to bear on Peru and Brazil. The Japanese, who had sent both government and industry dele­ gations to all IWC nations to lobby their cause, held a special meeting ot the whaling nations ju st prior to the IWC to coordinate their strategy of obstruction. The second development influencing the outcome in Brighton was th e continued abandonment of leadership by the United States in whale conservation. The U.S. Commissioner once again allowed the bowhead whaling issue to almost totally dominate his policy considerations. It was apparen t by the second day of the meeting tha t the bowhead obsession was dictating the entire U.S. position at the IWC. The timely intervention by you, Mr. Bonker, and Representa­ tive McCloskey and Senators Packwood and Cranston, forced Mr. Frank to focus on some other critical issues at the end of the week. Mr. B onker. Mr. Van Note, the record should also show that Congressman AuCoin was very active in this regard and his staff prepared the telegram we sent to Brighton. 27

Mr. Van Note. I see. I was unaware of th at. But, frankly, the damage had been done. It was embarrassing for American observers to admit to other conservationist nations that once again the U.S. Commissioner had placed a higher importance on obtaining a handful of bowhead whales for our native aborigines than in fighting to end the com­ mercial slaughter of thousands and thousands of whales. We perceive a new and alarm ing factor in the adm inistration’s policy of weakness and accommodation. That is the growing influ­ ence in Washington of the Japanese industry and Government interests. Some of the most influential consultants and lobbyists in Washington have been hired by the Japa nese to deal with the whaling issue. For example, a powerful Japanese lobbying organization with close ties to the ruling Liberal Democratic Party and major corpo­ rations, the Center for Political Public Relations, has hired former CIA Director William Colby to address issues dividing the United States and Japa n, including the negative view of Japanese activi­ ties in the whaling industry. The Japan Whaling Association, which is heavily financed by the Japanese Government, has hired an extremely influential Wash­ ington lobbyist, Robert Keefe. Keefe is a special consultant to the Democratic National Committee, a fundraiser for President Carter, and maintains close personal ties to two of President Carter’s top aides, Hamilton Jordan and Robert Strauss. Keefe is being paid $80,000 this year for his services. The Japanese fishing industry has retained the services of Brock Adams, former Congressman and former Secretary of Transporta­ tion. Adams’ job is to protect his clients access to the U.S. 200-mile fishery zone. The Packwood-Magnuson amendment is a direct thr eat to Japan’s fishing fleets because of the outlaw whaling supported by the Japanese. You can be sure Mr. Adams is doing everything possible to keep Jap an from being certified under the Pelly amendment, which triggers the Packwood-Magnuson amendment. The Japan Whaling Association employs an internationa l public relations firm at a cost of more than $100,000 a year, Tele-Press Associates, to lobby on its behalf and to produce propaganda in defense of whaling. This year, the printing presses of the whalers are working over­ time churning out tens of thousands of leaflets, booklets, and press releases for distribution all around the world. The whalers even had the gall to distribute a cartoon showing a whaler shaking hands with his friend, the whale. The U.S. capitulation on the high sperm whale quota for Japan, 890, was a startling reversal of U.S. leadership under previous whaling commissioners. I would take issue with Mr. Frank’s statemen ts a little while ago regarding the inevitability of accepting this high quota. I would refer to the example in 1976 set by the U.S. Commissioner then, Dr. Robert White, who was also the Administrator of NOAA. On the last day of the IWC meeting there was a deadlock for more than 4 hours as the Japanese and Russians loudly denounced the lower sperm whale quotas that were being recommended by 28 the Scientific Committee, and the Japanese and Soviets had a hard­ core bloc of six countries which blocked the adoption of the sperm whale quotas. Dr. White led the 15-nation majority to hold the line; and they took vote after vote afte r vote. I thin k it was about a dozen votes. Finally, after some judicious diplomacy behind the scenes, South Africa was persuaded to move into the yes column and the low quota was adopted. Frankly, I expected that Mr. Frank would put up some kind of fight this year because the evidence was overwhelming that there should be a zero quota. Just last year the Scientific Committee recommended a zero quota on the pelagic whaling for the North Pacific sperm whale. The United States fought hard and was able to, with other nations, win that. There is no reason why we couldn’t have won a zero quota this year on the coastal whaling. Mr. Frank referred to a number of 400 which had been tried, but apparently that was behind closed doors, because we never heard about it; and when this 890 figure was suddenly announced in the full IWC meeting, it shocked all the observers, because the re had been really no debate regarding this figure. As far as we can see, there is no scientific justification whatso­ ever. It was apparently a number that the Japa nese might live with. I would cite another example, in 1977 at Canberra, where we had Dr. William Aron as Commissioner. He, in that year, forced a huge reduction in sperm whale quotas in the North Pacific over the angry objections of J apan and the Soviet Union. That quota was set at 763. Unfortunately, in December of th at year, Mr. Frank had become Commissioner and he went to Tokyo for a special IWC meeting and accepted highly questionable new data—I say new in quotes—from the Japa nese and accepted a quota increase from that 763 all the way up to 6,444. It turns out that this data submitted by the Japanese was highly selective and self-serving. Indeed, it was another serious miscalcu­ lation by the whaling commission. The next year the scientists realized that the North Pacific sperm whales had been seriously depleted because the scientists did not understand the population dynamics of the species. So last year the scientists recommended overwhelmingly—and the Commission finally adopted—a zero quota on all sperm whaling by factory ships. It is this background of demonstrated incompetence in whale management that led to this yea r’s recommendation by the Scien­ tific Committee for a shutdown of the last sperm whaling in the North Pacific, the handful of shore stations in Japan . The Japanese whalers are frequently heard to claim that whale meat is a vital and traditional part of the Japa nese diet. But tha t propaganda is not credible when you realize that sperm whale meat is inedible for humans because of its high concentration of mercury, a toxic metal. The meat is used for fertilizer and animal feed. 29 So Japa n was fighting to keep its sperm whaling going strictly to provide employment for a few dozen whalers for another year or two. Mr. Bonker. You say on the one hand that the whaling industry is a powerful economic force in Japan as evidenced by setting up public relations firms and retaining high-priced counsel here in Washington, D.C. I happen to agree with that notion. Then you tur n around and say that it only is necessary to keep a few dozen people employed. It must be of much greater economic significance than tha t. It must be a very important industry in Japan. Mr. V an N ote. Well, th e whaling industry per se is quite small. They probably only have 600 workers in it right now; but it is really, in the eyes of the Japanese, inseparable from the fishing industry, which is large. Mr. B onker. When we talk about the whaling industry, we are also talking about, in a broader term, the fishing industry? Mr. Van N ote. Yes. Mr. Bonker. Of which whaling is a part? Mr. V an N ote. Yes; they do not perceive any difference, really. I wish they did. It would be helpful if you could persuade them that whales were not that important. Anyway, it is economic considerations such as this case which have ruled decisionmaking in the IWC since its first meeting in 1948. The protection of the whales has almost always been subor­ dinated to the profit motive, to amortization of capital investments, to employment. For several pages here, I have cited appeals by the conservation community to President Carter regarding the abdication of leader­ ship in whale conservation. Then I have cited, for th e record, a good five or six stateme nts by President Carter since 1976 in support of whale conservation. I do so because we must raise the question of what is the admin­ istratio n’s policy on whales. By reading President Carter’s sta te­ ments, he would be one of the great whale conservationists of all time; but then we look at the record of Mr. Frank in recent years and it is a decidedly different picture. In fact, Mr. Frank is quoted in the Washington Post this past July 23, in the middle of the IWC meeting. I quote one section of the story. Frank criticized militant conservationists and anti-whaling countries for being unrealistic and inflexible in their uncompromising demands for a total ban on whaling. He said it was necessary instead to enter into negotiations with whaling nations to find a way for a moratorium to be phased in to accommodate the economic and employment problems it would cause them. “We have to attem pt to accommodate them,” Frank said, “and I believe we can do it in the relatively near future.” It is precisely this attitude of accommodation on the part of th e U.S. Commissioner—I think he reiterated that today during his question and answer—that has destroyed the leadership position of this nation in whale conservation. The only accommodation the whalers believe in is to allow them to drive the last of the whales to commercial extinction, a coldly descriptive term for killing off the whales until the point is reached where it is not profitable to chase down the last survivors.

<>8-796 O — HO------3 30 A major problem facing the IWC has been the outlaw whalers, the unregulated whaling operations outside of the treaty organiza­ tion. I think Mr. Frank addressed that issue and explained tha t much of tha t problem has been resolved. One of the pirate ships sank and we have had six non-IWC countries join IWC in recent years. That has not really solved the problem, because even though we don’t have these outlaw whalers anymore, we have a problem of compliance now by these previously outlaw whalers with the quotas tha t we have in the IWC. I would cite the one outlaw whaling operation that still goes on. That is the Taiwanese operation. As Mr. Frank stated, they are still being obstinate about stopping this pirate whaling. The expo­ sure of this by a number of conservation groups led by Greenpeace has embarrassed Japan—which has been the importer of whale meat and which is really behind this outlaw whaling—and forced them to shut off the imports from Taiwan for the time being. I would like to submit for the record a copy of the Greenpeace publication, “Outlaw Whalers, 1980,” which documents this and other whaling scandals. We still have a problem of large amounts of whale meat from those outlaw operations which are trying to get to market in Japan. We have learned that 800 tons of whale mea t from the Sierra are still in Portugal and more than 2,000 tons are stockpiled in Taiwan. The Japa nese have ordered that this meat be sold somehow. Mr. Bonker. Why is it being stockpiled? Mr. Van Note. The Japa nese Government has told them not to bring the meat into Japan. The storage charges are very high. The meat is worth more tha n $4 million. So they are trying to find a market, but the only market is J apan. We have learned that they are offering this meat to third countries such as Spain with the implied, I think, result that this meat would be re-exported to Japan, you might say laundered. Mr. Bonker. There is some of th at going through Korea? Mr. Van Note. Yes; it has been. As Mr. Frank testified, the Koreans claim they have stopped it. It appears no more is going in there. Mr. Bonker. What are the incentives for Japa nese whalers to continue the practice if they can ’t bring the product into the coun­ try? Mr. Van Note. For more tha n 12 years they have been able to get this meat in. Mr. Bonker. Obviously, they must have been having problems now? Mr. Van Note. At the moment it is too hot, but I figure they will be able to find ways. There are unconfirmed reports that some of the Taiwanese whale meat is being transferred at sea from the whaling ships to Japanese freighters. We just learned that they have been bringing meat from the Chilean and Peruvian whaling operations into Jap an for years under phony documentation as product of Panama; and I wouldn’t be surprised if it comes in tha t way again. It didn’t even go in as whale meat in the past. It has just gone in as, apparently, fish or something else. 31

Mr. Bonker. H ow long can they store whale meat in Portugal? Mr. Van N ote. We hear that the meat in Portugal is deteriorat­ ing so badly after a year that the Japa nese probably do not want to import it now. In fact, they have been seeking a pet food m arket in Europe with that meat; but it would be a violation of the CITES Convention, the Endangered Species Convention, to import that into European countries. They have a lot of whale meat on the ir hands that they do not know how to get rid of. Anyway, th at is one problem we face. Mr. Frank referred to the Spanish and the problems we have had with their objection. I would like to address that. Spain has demonstrated unqualified contempt for whale conser­ vation for years. Before it joined the IWC a year ago, the Spanish refused to follow recommendations by the IWC not to increase the level of kill. Instead, at the urging of the Japa nese partners in the two shore stations, the kill was trippled. There is some evidence it may have gone up more than that, at the least. All species were taken, including the rar e blue and humpback whales as well as the more plentiful fin and sperm whale species. At the same time, Spain was providing sanctuary and facilities to the pirate ship Sierra and its sister ships in the Canary Islands. When the IWC set a quota of 143 fin whales in 1980 for Spain, the government filed an objection, announcing its inten tion to allow a higher kill. The U.S. Government, prodded by Congress, warned Spain of the sanctions afforded in the Pelly and Packwood/ Magnuson amendments. Spain refused to withdraw the objection, but piously promised this spring not to breach the 143 quota before the IWC July 1980 meeting, when it would seek reconsideration. We believe th at this promise was a deceit to avoid U.S. sanctions. According to sources inside the Spanish whaling operation, the whalers had taken 161 fin whales as of Jun e 30, 3 weeks before the IWC meeting opened in England. Another 101 fin whales were taken in the first 23 days of July by the three Spanish catch er boats. On July 24, in the middle of the IWC meeting, the Spanish commissioner made a hand-wringing plea for a higher quota and dramatically announced his country was w ithdrawing its objection. The IWC then agreed to increase the 1980 quota, lumping it together with the 1981 quota for a 2-year total of 440 fin whales with a maximum in any 1 year of 240 whales. This year, therefore, Spain can take 240 fin whales. This deal sounds like it should satisfy Spain and get it off the hook with the United States. But wait. Our sources in Spain say the Spanish whalers had already taken 262 fin whales by the time the ir 240 quota was voted. And the whaling season has continued with scores more killed. The owner of the Spanish operation, Juan Masso, instructed his crews last May to ignore the quotas and harpoon every whale they could find. Spain has steadfastly refused to allow observers at the two whal­ ing stations. The wholesale cheating will continue until independ­ ent observers are in place. Unfortunately, the United States has done little to encourage such observers in Spain or elsewhere. There has been large-scale violations of IWC quotas in Peru in the 32 last year. In Chile, the ir factory/catcher ship is still operating despite a ban on such whaling. The South Koreans are apparently still killing fin whales, which they claim are Brydes whales. Scientists claim Brydes whales do not grow that big. In J apa n itself there are cases of widespread violations of quotas and regulations by the coastal whalers. The U.S. observer in Japan last year found a very high percentage of lactating and other female whales taken in his partial observations. Of course, the Soviets violated the quotas last fall when they took more than 200 sperm whales with the ir factory ships. In the southern ocean they took 913 Orcas or killer whales in violation of the recommenda­ tions of the scientific committee. In summary, we must ask the question at this hearing: How can the United States regain its leadership and bring about a rapid end to commercial whaling? Has the United States been so compromised by the bowhead issue and so pressured by the whaling nations that it has lost the ability—or the will—to pursue a strong policy against commercial whaling? If this is the case, then the administration has betrayed the American people, who are overwhelmingly opposed to the slaughter tha t has driven the great whales close to extinction. We strongly recommend that Congress demand a return to the policy of vigorous opposition to commercial whaling. The laws that Congress adopted should be used to bring about compliance with IWC whale conservation measures. Unless the sanctions of the Pelly amendment and the Packwood/Magnuson amendment are made credible through their use on the outlaw nations and IWC cheaters, the United States will be ignored. There should be no doubt that much of the progress made at the IWC since 1974 was due to the real thr eat of U.S. sanctions. We call on the administration to certify, under the Pelly amend­ ment, Japan, the Soviet Union, Spain, Peru and Taiwan for their subversion of IWC whale conservation measures. Chile should also be certified if it is found to be in violation. The most basic step to gua rantee compliance is to put independ­ ent observers on the factory fleets and in each shore station. The United States should immediately press all whaling nations to implement the IWC’s observer scheme right now. The widespread cheating will continue until this is done. The United States should issue a stern warning to Japan tha t the outlaw whaling scandal will not be tolerated any longer. The administration should demand tha t Japanese auth orities conduct a thorough and open investigation of the outlaw whaling activities of Taiyo Fishery Co. and other Japanese interests that are behind the outlaw whalers. A similar investigation should be demanded of Norway, where a major bank and an insurance company have held partial ownership in the Sierra operation. In the past year, the thre e South American whaling nations have made commitments to go out of whaling. But pressure from the Japa nese whaling interests in Peru, Chile and Brazil has forced those countries to back off on the commitments. The United States should approach those governments at a high level to influence them to stick to their plans. The Japanese Government should be 33 warned to keep the ir aggressive whaling companies out of the affairs of the South American governments. Similar lobbying efforts should be directed at all IWC member nations to build support for another moratorium vote next year. The time to begin this is now, not at the last minute as has been the case in recent years. The Japa nese are surely practicing their brand of strong-arm diplomacy at this very moment to keep the ir own industry and all the ir far-flung whale meat suppliers in busi­ ness. Above all, the United States should insure that nonwhaling na­ tions like Canada and South Africa do not again sabotage whale conservation proposals at the IWC. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [Mr. Van Note’s prepared state ment follows:]

P repared Statement of Craig Van Note, Executive Vice P residen t, the Monitor Consortium

As executive vice president of the Monitor consortium of conservation, environmental and animal welfare organizations, I am t e s t i f y i n g to d a y on b e h a l f o f th e f o llo w in g mem be r organizations:

The Fund f o r A n im als G re e n p e a c e U .S .A . International Fund for Animal Welfare American Society for the Prevention of C r u e lty t o A n im als F r ie n d s o f W hale s B ir m in gham M a ri n e A nim al P r o t e c t i o n S o c ie ty W ash in g to n Humane S o c ie ty Friends of W ildlife Defenders of W ildlife

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before this committee to d a y . We a r e e s p e c i a l l y g r a t e f u l t o y o u , M r. B o n k e r, f o r h o ld in g this series of oversight hearings this year on U.S. policy on whaling and the status of whales. The strong leadership by you and your colleagues in Congress over the past decade has been instrumental in forcing the whaling nations to reduce substantially the rate of killing of these extraordinary marine mammals. Indeed, i f C o n g re ss h a d n o t p a s s e d t h e M a ri n e Mammal P r o t e c t i o n A c t, th e E n d an g ere d S p e c ie s A c t, th e P e l l y Amen dm en t and t h e Pac kw ood/M ag nuso n Am en dm en t, t h e g r e a t w h a le s w o u ld p r o b a b ly s t i l l b e d y in g in » record numbers and the whaling nations would be thumbing their noses at the warnings of scientists and the outrage of public o p in io n .

In the absence of strong leadership from the Administration, w it is vital for the Congress to continue to voice its strong opposition to commercial whaling and to pressure the Administration to implement the legislation passed by Congress to protect the great whales. T h is oversight hearing is especially timely, coming just s i x w ee ks a f t e r t h i s y e a r 's I n t e r n a t i o n a l W h ali n g C om m is si on (IW C) meeting. I would characterize this hearing as a post-mortem, b e c a u s e th o u s a n d s o f w h a le s w ere co nd em ne d t o d i e f o r s h o r t s i g h t e d greed and as the result of the spinelessness of several non-whaling n a t i o n s . We s h o u ld u s e t h i s h e a r i n g t o ex am in e w h at w ent w ro ng and begin here and now to reassert a strong whale conservation policy i n th e U .S . The major whale conservation proposals at this year's IWC m e e ti n g f a i l e d .

Th e f u l l m o ra to riu m was b lo c k e d by th e w h a lin g n a t i o n s , organized assiduously by the Japanese. Th e m o ra to ri u m on th e k i l l i n g o f sp erm w h a le s w as d e f e a t e d , too, in the face of overwhelming evidence that this species has been over-exploited and is in decline. This moratorium lost by a single vote -- Canada's. It was the only non-whaling nation to o p p o se th e sp erm w h a le m o ra to riu m . Th e IWC f a i l e d t o a d o p t t h e z e r o q u o ta on sp erm w h a le s i n the North Pacific, in spite of a strong recommendation by the S c i e n t i f i c C om m it te e o f t h e IWC. The U .S . d i d n 't ev en r a i s e i t s v o ic e to pu sh f o r th e z e r o q u o ta , w h ic h w o u ld h a v e a h e a v y im p a c t on Japan's coastal whaling stations. Instead a quota of 890 sp erm w h a le s was s e t , a num ber a p p a r e n t l y p lu c k e d o u t o f th e a i r .

Th e w h a li n g co m m is sio n v i r t u a l l y ig n o r e d th e ma ny f l a g r a n t infractions of quotas by the member nations, violations that am ounte d to m or e th a n 1 ,5 0 0 w h a le s . Th e f a i l u r e to r e q u i r e sanctions -- such as quota reductions equal to the infractions -- rewards the cheaters and w ill only encourage more subversion of th e IWC.

A consequence of the U.S. desertion of its whale conservation leadership is a lack of cohesion and coordination between the majority of IWC nations that support an end to all commercial whaling. There has been little sign of common purpose in recent m e e tin g s . The U.S., which once led major lobbying efforts to reduce whale quotas, has shown little enthusiasm in recent years. This stands in marked contrast to Japan. In fact, the major U.S. e f f o r t s in c e th e D ec em be r 1 9 7 7 IWC m e e tin g h a s b e e n t o g a in h ig h q u o ta s o f bow he ad w h a le s f o r t h e E sk im os i n th e f a c e o f unanim ous o p p o s i t i o n by th e S c i e n t i f i c C o m m it te e o f th e IWC. The whalers have taken advantage of this compromised position to effectively neutralize the U.S. on most whaling issues.

T h is y e a r , i t a p p e a re d t h a t t h e Co mm erc e and S t a t e D e p a rtm e n ts spent an inordinate amount of time putting pressure on the leading conservation nations — A ustralia, Netherlands, France and Seychelles -- to lessen their opposition to high bowhead whale q u o t a s . 35

The va cu um c r e a t e d by th e U .S . h a s a l s o r e s u l t e d i n a l o s s of influence over several IWC nations that have close economic, political and m ilitary ties with the U.S. In particular. South Korea and Chile, although they have small whaling operations, s h o u ld be am en ab le t o U .S . p e r s u a s i o n on many w h a lin g i s s u e s t h a t do not impact their interests. Instead, they are lined up s o l i d l y in th e J a p a n e s e ca m p.

South Africa no longer hunts whales, but it is more often than not siding with the whalers or abstaining on key votes. Japan and the Soviet Union are leaning on the South Africans; th e U .S . i s n ’ t .

The m o st a p p a l l i n g l a p s e o f U .S . i n f l u e n c e was w ith C a n a d a 's o p p o s itio n t o b o th th e f u l l m o ra to riu m a n d th e sp erm w h ale moratorium. It appears almost inconceivable that the United States Government could not have persuaded Canada to support, at the least, t h e sp erm w h a le m o ra to riu m . Th e p r o p o s a l f a i l e d , 14 t o 6 , f o r the lack of a single vote. Canada was the only non-whaling nation to oppose the moratorium. A little judicious diplomacy with Prime M inister Trudeau could have ensured the survival of m or e th a n 1 ,3 0 0 sp erm w h a le s n e x t y e a r - - and p e r h a p s ma ny thousands more in future years if the moratorium is blocked again.

Two developments over the past year dictated the unsuccessful outc om e o f th e J u l y IWC m e e tin g .

First, Japan launched a concerted campaign by both government and industry to tw ist arms, buy influence and propagandize around th e w o rld .

The Japanese succeeded in forming a hard-core bloc of whaling n a t i o n s t o d e f e a t any u n d e s i r a b l e p r o p o s a l s a t th e IWC. E co nom ic and political pressure was used to keep the other whaling nations i n l i n e . C h ile , f o r e x a m p le , was i n f lu e n c e d t o v o te dow n th e l i n e with Japan with the threat of loss of a lobster-fishery development plan along the Chilean coast. Similar pressures were brought to bear on Peru and Brazil. All three of these South American nations h a v e ma de co m m it m en ts t o go o u t o f w h a lin g i n t h e n e x t y e a r o r s o , but they found it in their interests to vote the hard-core whaling l i n e . The J a p a n e s e , who h ad s e n t b o th g o v e rn m e n t and i n d u s t r y delegations to all IWC nations to lobby their cause, held a special meeting of the whaling nations just prior to the IWC meeting to coordinate their strategy of obstruction.

Th e se c o n d d e v e lo p m e n t i n f l u e n c i n g t h e outc om e i n B r ig h to n w as th e c o n tin u e d ab andonm ent o f l e a d e r s h i p by th e U .S . in w h a le c o n s e r v a tio n . The U .S . c o m m is s io n e r o n ce a g a in a llo w e d th e bow hea d whaling issue to almost totally dominate his policy considerations. It was apparent by the second day of the meeting that the bowhead o b s e s s io n was d i c t a t i n g th e e n t i r e U .S . p o s i t i o n a t th e IWC. The tim e ly i n t e r v e n t i o n by y o u , M r. B o n k e r, an d R ep. M cC lo sk ey an d S e n a to r s Pa ck woo d an d C r a n s to n , f o r c e d M r. F ra n k t o fo c u s on some other critical issues at the end of the week. But, frankly, t h e damage h a d b e e n d o n e . 36

I t was e m b a rra ssin g f o r A m er ic an o b s e rv e rs to adm it to o th e r c o n s e rv a tio n is t n a tio n s t h a t on ce a g a in th e U .S . com m is si oner ha d p la c e d a h ig h e r im p o rt a n ce on o b ta in in g a h a n d fu l o f bowh ead w hale s fo r o u r n a tiv e a b o rig in e s th a n in f i g h ti n g to en d th e co m m er ci al s la u g h te r o f th o u sa n d s an d th o u sa n d s o f w h a le s . We p e rc e iv e a new and a la rm in g f a c t o r in th e A d m in is tr a tio n 's p o lic y o f w eak ness an d ac co m m odat io n. T hat i s th e gro w in g in flu e n c e in W as hin gto n o f th e Ja p a n e se in d u s tr y an d govern m ent i n t e r e s t s . Some o f th e m ost i n f l u e n t i a l c o n s u lta n ts an d lo b b y is ts in W as hin gto n have bee n h ir e d by th e Ja p a n e se to d e a l w ith th e w h a li n g is s u e . For exam ple , a p o w e rf u l Ja p a n e se lo b b y in g o r g a n iz a tio n w ith c lo s e t i e s to th e r u l in g L ib e ra l D em ocra ti c P a rty an d m ajo r c o rp o ra tio n s , th e C e n te r f o r P o l i t i c a l P u b lic R e la tio n s , has h ir e d fo rm er CIA di r e c t o r W il li am C olb y to a d d re ss is s u e s d iv id in g th e U.S . an d Ja p a n . A ccord in g to C o lb y 's f i l i n g as a fo r e ig n a g e n t, he h as a lre a d y re p o rte d to h is Ja p a n e se c l i e n t s a b o u t " th e n e g a tiv e vie w o f Ja p a n ese a c t i v i t i e s in th e w h a li n g in d u s tr y ." The Ja pan W hal in g A s s o c ia tio n , w hic h i s h e a v ily fin a n c e d by th e Ja p a n ese G ove rn m en t, h as h ir e d an e x tr e m e ly i n f l u e n t i a l W as hin gto n lo b b y is t, R o b ert K eefe . K ee fe i s a s p e c ia l c o n s u lta n t to th e D em ocra ti c N a ti o n a l C om m itte e, a f u n d - r a is e r f o r P re s id e n t C a rte r, an d m a in ta in s c lo s e p e rs o n a l t i e s to two o f P r e s id e n t C a r te r 's to p a id e s , H am ilto n Jo rd a n an d R o b e rt S tr a u s s . K ee fe i s b e in g p a id $ 8 0 ,0 0 0 t h i s y e a r f o r h is s e r v ic e s . The Ja p a n e se f is h in g in d u s tr y - - an d th e c o r p o ra tio n b e h in d a l l th e ou tl aw w h a li n g aro u n d th e w o rld , T aiy o F is h e ry Company — have r e ta in e d th e s e r v ic e s o f Bro ck Ad am s, fo rm er co ngre ss m an an d fo rm er S e c re ta ry o f T r a n s p o rta tio n . Adam s' jo b i s to p r o te c t h is c l i e n t s ' a c c e s s to th e U .S . 2 0 0 -m il e f is h e r y z o n e. The Packwo od /M ag nu son Amendment i s a d i r e c t t h r e a t to J a p a n 's f is h in g f l e e t s b ecau se o f th e o u tl a w w h a li n g . You ca n be su re Mr. Adams i s doin g e v e ry th in g p o s s ib le to keep Jap an from b e in g c e r t i f i e d under th e P e lly Am end ment, w hic h t r i g g e r s th e Pa ck woo d/Mag nu son Am endment. The Ja pan W hal in g A s s o c ia tio n em plo ys an i n te r n a t i o n a l p u b lic r e la t i o n s fir m , T e le -P re s s A s s o c ia te s , to lo bby on i t s b e h a lf an d to p ro duce pro paganda in d e fe n se o f w h a li n g . T h is y e a r, th e p r in tin g p r e s s e s o f th e w h a le rs a re w ork in g o v e rti m e ch u rn in g o u t te n s o f th o u sa n d s o f l e a f l e t s , b o o k le ts an d p re s s r e le a s e s f o r d i s t r i b u t i o n a l l aro und th e w o rld . Th e w h a le rs ev en had th e g a ll to d i s t r i b u t e a c a rto o n sh ow in g a w h a le r sh a k in g hands w it h h is " frie n d " th e w h ale . 37

The U.S . c a p i t u la ti o n on th e h ig h sp er m w hale q u o ta f o r Ja pan was a s t a r t l i n g r e v e r s a l o f U .S . le a d e r s h ip under p re v io u s w h a li n g com m is si oners . In 1 9 7 6 , f o r ex am ple , U .S . com m is si oner - - an d NOAA a d m in is tr a to r — R o b e rt W hite re fu s e d to back o f f from th e lo w er sp erm q u o ta s reco mmen de d by th e S c i e n t i f ic C om m itte e, d e s p ite angry d e n u n c ia ti o n s by Ja p a n an d th e S o v ie t U nio n. For more th a n fo u r h o u rs on th e l a s t da y o f t h a t IWC m eeti n g in Lon do n, D r. W hite le d a 1 5 -n a tio n m a jo r ity to s ta u n c h ly h o ld th e l in e on th e low q u o ta s . Vote a f t e r v o te to o k p la c e , w ith th e w h a le rs b lo c k in g th e re q u ir e d th r e e - q u a r te r s m a jo r ity by a s in g le v o te . Te mpers f l a r e d a s th e w h a le rs a tt e m p te d to en d th e an n u al m ee ti n g w it h o u t th e a d o p ti o n o f an y sp erm w hale q u o ta f o r th e S outh ern O ce an . C om m is si oner W hite ad am an tl y r e fu s e d to a g re e to ad jo u rn m en t, le c tu r in g th e w h a li n g n a ti o n s on t h e i r r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to s e t q u o ta s under th e New Management P ro c e d u re . He w ar ned f l a t l y o f U .S . s a n c tio n s t h a t m ig ht be ta k e n a g a in s t n a tio n s underm in in g th e e f f e c tiv e n e s s o f th e IWC.

In s te a d o f c a v in g in to th e o b s tr u c tiv e t a c t i c s o f th e w h a le rs , Dr. W hite b ro u g h t U .S . p re s s u r e to b e a r on South A fric a to w it h d ra w fro m th e w h a le rs* b lo c . The d e ad lo ck was bro ken when South A fric a c a p itu la te d . Und er s tro n g U .S . le a d e r s h ip , w hal e c o n s e rv a tio n won a m ajo r v i c t o r y .

A y e a r l a t e r in C a n b erra , A u s tr a lia , th e new U .S . w h a li n g com m is si oner, Dr. W il li a m A ro n, d e m o n str a te d U.S . le a d e r s h ip by fo rc in g a n o th e r huge r e d u c tio n in sp er m w hale q u o ta s , t h i s ti m e in th e N ort h P a c i f i c , o v e r th e a n g ry o b je c tio n s o f Jap an an d th e S o v ie t U ni on .

T his p ro g re s s was undone, how ever , in Decemb er 1977 when th e n e x t U.S . c o m m is sio n er, R ic h a rd F ra n k , w en t to Tokyo f o r a s p e c ia l IWC m eeti ng to r e c o n s id e r th e N ort h P a c if ic sp er m w hal e q u o ta an d th e q u o ta on bo whe ad w hale s fo r A la sk an Esk im os. The U .S . a c c e p te d h ig h ly - q u e s tio n a b le "new " d a ta fr om th e Ja p a n e se to in c r e a s e th e sp er m w hal e q u o ta fr om 763 to 6 ,4 4 4 .

I t tu rn s o u t t h a t t h i s d a ta su b m it te d by th e Ja p a n e se wa s h ig h ly s e le c tiv e an d s e l f - s e r v i n g . In d e ed , i t was a n o th e r s e r io u s m is c a lc u la tio n by th e w h a li n g com m is si on. The n e x t y e a r th e s c i e n t i s t s r e a l iz e d t h a t th e N ort h P a c if ic sp er m w hale s had been s e r io u s ly d e p le te d b e c a u se th e s c i e n t i s t s d id n o t u n d e rsta n d th e p o p u la tio n dynam ic s o f th e s p e c ie s . So l a s t y e a r th e s c i e n t i s t s rec om me nded o v erw h elm in g ly - - an d th e co m m ission f i n a l l y a d o p te d - - a z ero q u o ta on a l l sp er m w h a li n g by f a c to r y s h ip s . The s c i e n t i s t s w er e c h a g rin e d to fin d t h a t th e y had a ll o w e d so many m ale sp er m w h ale s to be k i l l e d t h a t th e s u rv iv in g p o p u la ti o n s c a n n o t re p ro d u c e e f f e c t i v e l y . In d e ed , sh o u ld th e z ero q u o ta be in e f f e c t fo r a deca de o r m ore , th e sp er m w hale 38

p o p u la tio n w i l l c o n tin u e to d e c l i n e fr o m n a t u r a l m o r t a l i t y a lo n e .

I t i s t h i s b a c k g ro u n d o f d e m o n s tr a te d in c o m p e te n c e i n w h a le m an ag em en t t h a t l e d t o t h i s y e a r 's re co m m en d ati o n by t h e s c i e n t i f i c co m m it te e f o r a sh u t- d o w n o f t h e l a s t sp erm w h a lin g i n t h e N o rth P a c i f i c , th e h a n d f u l o f s h o re s t a t i o n s i n J a p a n .

Ja p a n fo u g h t b i t t e r l y a g a i n s t t h i s re c o m m e n d a ti o n , b e c a u s e i t w ould have m eant m o st o f i t s c o a s t a l w h a lin g i n d u s t r y w o u ld be p u t o u t o f b u s i n e s s .

Th e J a p a n e s e w h a le r s a r e f r e q u e n t l y h e a r d to c la im t h a t w h a le m ea t i s a " v i t a l " and " t r a d i t i o n a l " p a r t o f th e J a p a n e s e d i e t . B ut t h a t p ro p a g a n d a i s n o t c r e d i b l e whe n you r e a l i z e t h a t sp erm w h ale m eat i s i n e d i b l e f o r hu m an s b e c a u s e o f i t s h ig h c o n c e n t r a t i o n o f m e rc u ry , a t o x i c m e t a l . Th e m eat i s u s e d f o r * f e r t i l i z e r an d a n im a l f e e d .

So Ja p a n was f i g h t i n g t o k e e p i t s sp erm w h a lin g g o in g s t r i c t l y t o p r o v id e em plo ym en t f o r a fe w d o zen w h a le r s f o r a n o th e r y e a r o r tw o.

I t i s econom ic c o n s i d e r a t i o n s su c h a s t h i s c a s e w h ic h h av e r u l e d d e c is io n -m a k in g i n th e IVJC s i n c e i t s f i r s t m e e tin g i n 1 9 4 8 . The p r o t e c t i o n o f th e w h a le s h a s a lm o s t a lw a y s b e e n s u b o r d in a te d t o t h e p r o f i t m o tiv e , t o a m o r t iz a t i o n o f c a p i t a l in v e s tm e n t s , to em plo ym ent.

In M arch o f t h i s y e a r s i x t y - s e v e n c o n s e r v a ti o n g ro u p s s t a t e d i n a l e t t e r to P r e s i d e n t C a r t e r t h a t :

"T he U .S . h a s a b d i c a t e d l e a d e r s h i p i n th e i n t e r n a t i o n a l e f f o r t t o end c o m m e rc ia l w h a li n g b e c a u s e th e U .S . C o m m is sio n er to th e I n t e r n a t i o n a l W h ali n g C om m is si on (IW C) h a s g iv e n p r i o r i t y t o o b t a i n i n g a h ig h q u o ta f o r A l a s k a 's E sk im os on t h e e n d a n g e re d bow hea d w h a le . Th e U .S . m u st n o t com pro m is e i t s p r i n c i p l e s by t r a d i n g o f f h u n d re d s and th o u s a n d s o f w h a le s t o t h e c o m m e rc ia l w h a lin g n a t i o n s f o r a h a n d f u l o f bow hea d w h a le s . P le a s e d i r e c t o u r IWC C o m m is sio n er t o a d h e r e to y o u r co m m en dab le p o l i c y a g a i n s t c o m m e rc ia l w h a lin g an d t o o p p o se a l l s e c r e t m e e tin g s a t th e IW C."

U n f o r tu n a te ly , t h e U .S . C o m m is sio n er o n ce a g a in a b d i c a t e d U .S . l e a d e r s h i p i n w h a le c o n s e r v a ti o n by s p e n d in g m a jo r e f f o r t on o b t a i n i n g a h ig h q u o ta o f bow hea d w h a le s a t th e e x p e n s e o f w in n in g th e m o ra to riu m v o te s - - o r a t l e a s t t h e q u o ta r e d u c t i o n s re co m m en ded by t h e s c i e n t i f i c c o m m it te e o f th e IWC.

Th e d i s s o l u t i o n o f U .S . l e a d e r s h i p i s p a r t i c u l a r l y p e r p le x in g b e c a u s e i t m ak es a m ockery o f t h e r e p e a t e d l y - s t a t e d p o s i t i o n o f P r e s i d e n t C a r te r on w h a le c o n s e r v a ti o n . F o r t h e r e c o r d , we su b m it M r. C a r t e r 's s ta te m e n ts o v e r t h e p a s t f o u r y e a r s . 39

In 1976, w h il e cam paig nin g f o r th e p re s id e n c y , Mr. C a rte r s ta te d in a p o s itio n p a p er: " I have a lo n g s ta n d in g co mmitm en t to p r o te c t th e oceans an d th e a n im a ls t h a t l iv e t h e r e in . The U n it ed N a ti o n s C o n fe re n ce on th e Human E nvir onm ent to o k p la c e in Sto ckholm , Swede n in 1 9 7 2 . I wa s a member o f th e a d v is o ry co m m ission to th e U n it ed S ta te s d e le g a tio n . At t h a t ti m e , I wor ke d to make p r e s e r v a tio n o f w h ale s a m ajo r is s u e a t th e c o n fe re n c e . S in c e th e n , I hav e been c o n ce rn ed a b o u t th e d e s tr u c tio n o f many s to c k s o f m ari ne mammals a n d .f i s h . • " I have su p p o rte d th e M ar in e Mammal P r o te c tio n Act o f 19 72 s in c e i t s p a s s a g e . So f a r , im p le m e n ta ti o n h as been sl ow an d tim id . Und er th e C a rte r A d m in is tr a tio n t h a t w i l l n o t be th e c a s e . We m ust j o in to g e th e r w it h o th e r n a tio n s to p re s e rv e th e s p e c ie s in th e oceans t h a t a re endangere d o r th r e a te n e d ."

The May 1977 E n v ir o n m en ta l M es sa ge to C ongre ss by P r e s id e n t C a rte r co mm en ted , in p a r t: " In s p i t e o f th e p ro g re s s made in th e p a s t f iv e y e a rs in th e IWC, a m ajo r ch an ge in th e I n te r n a tio n a l W hal in g C onventi on i t s e l f i s needed b e fo re c o n s e rv a tio n m easu re s w i l l be a d e q u a te to a s s u r e p r o te c tio n . " In o rd e r to p ro v id e a d d itio n a l p r o te c tio n f o r w h a le s, th e P re s id e n t h a s d ir e c te d th e S e c re ta ry o f Comm erce, w it h th e f o re ig n p o lic y g u id an ce o f th e S e c re ta ry o f S t a te , to : m a in ta in fir m U .S . s u p p o rt f o r a 10 y e a r w orl dw id e m ora to ri um on th e com m erc ia l k i l l i n g o f w hale s r e p o r t to him w ith in 60 day s an y a c tio n s t h a t d im in is h th e e f f e c tiv e n e s s o f th e I n te r n a tio n a l W hal in g C om m is si on's c o n s e rv a tio n p ro g ra m ." J u s t a m on th l a t e r , in Ju n e 1 9 7 7 , P r e s id e n t C a rte r s e n t a p e rs o n a l m es sa ge to th e mem ber n a tio n s o f th e IWC wh en th e y met in A u s tr a lia . H is s ta te m e n t r e a d , in p a r t: "W ha les have be come sy m boli c o f o u r e n v ir o n m e n ta l pro ble m s as a w hole . No lo n g e r a re th e y vie w ed a s a p ro d u c t from th e se a a v a ila b le to th o s e w it h th e te c h n o lo g y f o r t h e i r h a r v e s t . . . I (h a v e ) ask ed th e a g e n c ie s o f o u r Gov er nm en t to r e p o r t to me on a c tio n s by c o u n tr ie s w hic h d im in is h th e e f f e c t i v e ­ n e s s o f th e c o n s e rv a tio n re gim e o f th e IWC. We in th e U n it ed S ta te s a re d e te rm in e d to e x p lo re e v ery • p r a c t i c a l m ea su re to r e in f o r c e th e v i t a l wor k o f t h i s b o d y ." 40

In a 2 J a n u a r y 19 79 l e t t e r t o th e c o n s e r v a ti o n co m m unit y, President Carter addressed a complaint about the growing vacillation in U.S. whaling policy:

"(An) issue you raised involved the Administration's actions to protect whales. Since you wrote me, Dick Frank, Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, has consulted closely with those concerned about whale conserva­ t i o n . As you kn ow , I am p e r s o n a l l y c o m m it te d t o protecting the world's whales. I have asked Dick Frank to continue his efforts to achieve our preservation objectives." Last fall, the Carter Administration produced a pamphlet, T he P r e s i d e n t 's E n v ir o n m e n ta l P ro g ra m - 1979. I n t h e s e c t i o n on ♦ "Saving the Whales,” President Carter stated:

" I am w h o le h e a r te d ly c o m m it te d t o s t r o n g a c t i o n to guarantee the survival of the great whales. Th e p r o g r e s s mad e i n t h i s y e a r 's IWC m e e tin g w sh ow s t h a t many o t h e r n a t i o n s s h a r e th e A m eri can commitment. I w ill continue to press for better scientific understanding of these magnificent and highly intelligent creatures and w ill maintain the effort to halt commercial whaling."

These four years of pronouncements by President Carter have been ignored by the U.S. whaling commissioner. His attitude was exemplified by statements to the Washington Post during the recent IWC m e e tin g . Th e P o s t s t o r y , w h ic h r a n J u l y 2 3 rd , r e a d , in p a r t :

"Frank criticized m ilitant conservationists and antiwhaling countries for being 'unrealistic an d i n f l e x i b l e ' i n t h e i r u n co m p ro m is in g de m an ds f o r a t o t a l b a n on w h a lin g . He s a i d i t was necessary instead to enter into negotiations with whaling nations to find a way for a moi’a to r iu m t o b e p h a s e d i n t o accom m odat e th e econom ic and em plo ym en t p ro b le m s i t w o u ld c a u s e th em .

"'W e h a v e to a tte m p t t o ac co m m odat e t h e m ,' F ra n k s a i d , 'a n d I b e l i e v e we ca n do i t i n t h e relatively near future.'"

It is precisely this attitude of "accommodation" on the part of the U.S. commissioner that has destroyed the leadership position of this nation in whale conservation. The only accommodation the whalers believe in is to allow them to drive the last of the whales to commercial extinction, a coldly descriptive term for killing off the whales until the point is reached where it is not profitable t o c h a s e down th e l a s t s u r v i v o r s . «

Already the whalers have efficiently decimated the blue, hum pback, r i g h t , bow hea d, f i n , and s e i w h a le s . Now th e y a r e d e p l e t i n g th e sp e rm , B ry d es and m in ke w h a le s . A fe w m ore y e a r s o f "a cc om m od at io n" an d th e w h ali n g is s u e w i l l be re s o lv e d : th e w h a le rs w i l l eco n o m ic a ll y d e s tro y th e s e l a s t th r e e c o m m e rc ia lly -p ro fita b le w hale s b e fo re th e in d u s tr y i t s e l f i s l iq u i d a te d by i t s g re e d . T her e sh o u ld be l i t t l e doubt by an y o b je c tiv e o b s e rv e r t h a t th e ec onom ic s o f w h ali n g a re th e eco nom ic s o f e x ti n c ti o n .

Herman M e lv il le w ro te p r o p h e tic a lly o f t h i s f a te f o r th e w hale s when he pose d t h i s q u e s tio n in Ilo by Dick: "The moo t p o in t i s , w h e th er L e v ia th a n ca n lo n g endure so w id e a ch ase an d so re m o rs e le s s a hav oc; w h eth er he m ust n o t a t l a s t be e x te rm i­ n a te d from th e w a te rs , an d th e l a s t w h ale , l ik e th e l a s t ma n, smoke h i s l a s t p ip e an d th e n h im s e lf e v a p o ra te in th e f i n a l p u f f ."

OUTLAWS AND CHEATERS

A m ajo r pro ble m fa c in g th e IWC h as been th e o u tl a w w h a le rs , th e u n re g u la te d w h a li n g o p e ra tio n s o u ts id e o f th e t r e a t y o rg a n iz a tio n .

By c o n d u c ti n g u n r e s t r ic te d w h a li n g on a l l s p e c ie s an d s iz e s o f w h a le s, th e s e o u tl a w w h a le rs have s u b v e rte d th e m is sio n o f th e IWC, w hic h in th e o ry i s to m a in ta in v ia b le w hale p o p u la tio n s th ro u g h p r o te c tio n o r q u o ta s . Most o f th e u n re g u la te d w h ali n g i s on c o a s ta l w hale p o p u la tio n s , w hic h h ave been h e a v ily d e p le te d f o r decades an d can n o t b e a r heav y e x p lo i t a t i o n . In th e m id - 1 9 7 0 's , th e r e w er e as many w h a li n g n a tio n s o u ts id e th e IWC as in i t . The non-IWC n a tio n s w ere B r a z il, P e ru , C h ile , S p ain , South Kor ea an d Taiwan . In a d d itio n , th e r e wa s th e p i r a t e sh ip S ie r r a , w hic h fle w th e f la g o f S o m a li a , th e n C ypru s. A ll o f th e s e n a tio n s r e p e a te d ly r e je c t e d i n v i t a t i o n s to j o in th e IWC. T h e ir an n u al k i l l was th o u sa n d s o f w h a le s . T his unch ec ked m assa cre h as under m in ed th e e f f e c tiv e n e s s an d c r e d i b i l i t y o f th e IWC.

On ly when th e U .S . an d o th e r n a tio n s began c a l l i n g a tt e n ti o n to th e u n re g u la te d w h a li n g — an d th e U .S . r a is e d th e s p e c tr e o f u s in g th e P e lly Amendment — d id m ost o f th e s e c o u n tr ie s a g re e to j o in th e IWC. I t wa s a d i f f i c u l t p r o c e s s , p a r t i c u l a r l y b ecau se th e u n re g u la te d w h a li n g wa s h ig h ly p r o f i t a b l e f o r th e i n t e r e s t s — m o stl y Ja p a n e se - - b e h in d them . At th e l a s t s ix m ee ti n g s o f th e com m is si on, r e s o lu tio n s hav e been p a sse d c a l l in g f o r member n a tio n s to s to p su p p o rtin g th e o u tl aw w h a le rs th ro u g h o w n ers h ip , s u p p ly in g o f equip m en t an d e x p e r tis e , o r p u rc h a se o f th e w hale p r o d u c ts . Ja p an r e p e a te d ly b lo ck e d e f f o r t s to a d o p t a m an dato ry ban on th e t r a f f i c k i n g . The r e s o lu tio n s p a sse d w e re , an d c o n ti n u e to b e , n o n -b in d in g . The Ja p a n ese w h a li n g i n t e r e s t s ha ve c o n ti n u e d to s u p p o rt o u tl aw w h a li n g . 42

In Ta iw an , a w h a li n g in d u s tr y wa s e s ta b lis h e d in 19 76 by Ja p a n e se w h a le rs se e k in g b ig p r o f i t s from an u n b rid le d m assa cre o f w hale s in th e W est ern P a c if i c . T h is new o u tl a w o p e ra tio n was m o d ell ed on th e p i r a t e sh ip S i e r r a , w hic h wa s r e tu r n in g mo re th an a m illio n d o lla r s in p r o f i t each y e a r to i t s Ja p a n e se an d Norweg ian ow ners . T ai yo F is h e ry Com pany, w hic h own ed a p a r t o f th e S ie r r a o p e r a tio n , an d a n o th e r g ia n t Ja p a n e se f i s h i n g co mpa ny , Ni pp on S u is a n , c o n v erte d fo u r o f t h e i r s u rp lu s s t e m tr a w le r s in to f a c to r y / c a tc h e r s h ip s . O p e ra ti n g o u t o f th e p o r t o f K ao hsi ung in so u th w e st Tai w an , an d ma nned by Ja p a n e se w h a le rs , th e s e o u tl aw s h ip s ha ve h u n te d down ev ery w hale to be fo u n d , in c lu d in g th e r a r e hump bac k w hale an d m o th ers an d b a b ie s . A cco rd in g to t h e i r lo g -b o o k s , th e y w hale d aro und J a p a n ’ s Bon in Is la n d s an d in th e U .S . T ru st T e r r i t o r i e s . T ai yo an d Nippo n S u is a n a rra n g e d a c o n v e n ie n t m et ho d o f im p o rti n g th e i l l i c i t w hale m ea t in to Ja pan: th e y sh ip p e d th e th o u sa n d s o f to n s o f fro z e n w hale m ea t to South K ore a, whe re i t wa s r e la b e lle d " P ro d u c t o f K ore a" an d re -e x p o r te d to Ja p a n . Once S outh Kor ea jo in e d th e IWC, su ch im p o rts from th e r e w ere le g a l. * When G re en peace expose d th e w hole s e c r e t w h a li n g b u s in e s s more th a n a y e a r ago, th e Ja p a n e se gover nm en t t r i e d to ig n o re th e s c a n d a l. I t was o b v io u s w hat wa s go in g on, s in c e S outh Kor ea e x p o rts only sm a ll q u a n ti t ie s o f f r e s h w hale m ea t an d Ja pan was r e p o r tin g hu ge im p o rt s o f fro z e n w hale m ea t from K o re a. Ja pan wa s em barr asse d i n to a d m itti n g th e o u tl a w w h a li n g wh en newsmen i d e n t i f ie d 300 to n s o f th e fro z e n m ea t on th e do ck in Ja p a n . We su bm it f o r th e re c o rd a co py o f th e G re en peace p u b lic a tio n , O utlaw W ha le rs - 1 9 8 0 , w hic h do cu m en ts t h i s an d o th e r w h ali n g s c a n d a ls . A lthough th e Ja p a n e se gover nm en t c la im s t h a t th e Tai w an es e w hale m ea t i s no lo n g e r e n te r in g Ja p a n , th e o u tl a w s h ip s a re s t i l l h u n ti n g down th e w h ale s an d th e m ea t i s b e in g s to c k p ile d . Th e Ja p a n ese co m pan ie s w i l l s u r e ly f in d a way to g e t th e m ea t to Ja p a n , th e o n ly m ark et f o r i t . We cannot t r u s t th e Ja p a n e se gover nm en t to r e s t r a i n i t s p o w e rf u l f is h in g co m pan ie s b e ca u se p a s t a s s u ra n c e s by Ja pan have pro ven to be w o r th le s s . We m ig ht r e c a l l a "p ro m is e" by Ja p a n to th e U .S . in Ja n u a ry 1978 t h a t a l l im p o rts o f non-IWC w hale p ro d u c ts w ou ld be phase d o u t t h a t y e a r. In r e a l i t y , th e p i r a t e p ro d u c ts in c re a s e d s t e a d i l y an d De cember 19 78 saw th e h ig h e s t im p o rt s e v e r - - from th e S i e r r a , Tai w an , S p a in , P e ru , C h il e an d South K ore a. Much o f th e pro ble m wa s re s o lv e d f o r Ja p an wh en South K ore a, P e ru , C h il e an d S p ain jo in e d th e IWC. T hes e c o u n tr ie s w er e re w ard ed w it h a " f r e e " y e a r o f u n re g u la te d w h a li n g l a s t y e a r b e c a u se Ja pan c o n ti n u e d im p o rti n g t h e i r w hale p ro d u c ts in s p ite o f th e f a c t t h a t m ost q u o ta s on th e new mem ber n a tio n s d id n o t go i n to e f f e c t u n t i l t h i s y e a r . * The pro ble m o f th e p i r a t e s h ip S ie r r a wa s ta k e n c a re o f wh en i t was rammed an d p u t o u t o f a c tio n in J u ly 1979 by th e Se a Shepherd , a s h ip o p e ra te d by The Fund f o r A n im als . Th en l a s t F e b ru a ry , a f t e r th e S ie r r a wa s r e p a ir e d an d as i t was * p r e p a r in g to re su m e w h a li n g , someone p la n te d a m a g n e ti c mine on i t s h u ll an d sa nk th e in fa m ous w h a le r. 43

In my te s ti m o n y b e fo re t h i s com m itte e l a s t A p ril 3 0 th , I p o in te d ou t t h a t "a m ajo r an d gro w in g pro ble m th r e a te n in g th e w hale c o n s e rv a tio n pro gra m o f th e IWC i s co m pli ance o f th e member n a tio n s w it h th e r e g u la tio n s an d q u o ta s e s ta b lis h e d by th e IWC." The pro ble m o f th e s e IWC c h e a te r s re m a in s, an d no a c tio n wa s ta k e n to p e n a liz e them f o r s u b v e rtin g th e w h a li n g co m m is si on. The S o v ie ts le d th e l i s t o f m a le fa c to rs w ith t h e i r b r u ta l l iq u id a tio n o f more th a n 900 o rc a s ( k i l l e r w h a le s) in d e fia n c e o f an IWC-reco mm end ed q u o ta o f 24 an d th e "m is u n d e rs ta n d in g " t h a t le d to th e k i l l i n g o f more th a n 200 sp er m w h ale s by t h e i r p e la g ic f l e e t s a f t e r su ch w h a li n g was banned. Th ey a ls o re fu s e d f o r y e t a n o th e r y e a r to d is c lo s e how th e y u se th e 189 g ra y w hale s ta k e n a n n u a lly . A cco rd in g to S o v ie t s o u rc e s , a lm o st a l l th e s e w hale s - - th e same ones t h a t m ig ra te each y e a r to th e la g o o n s o f B aja , C a lif o r n ia - - a re u sed to fe e d mink an d s a b le on f u r fa rm s. T his i s n o t th e a b o r ig in a l s u b s is te n c e f o r w hic h t h i s w hale quota i s m ea nt.

Spai n h as d e m o n str a te d u n q u a lif ie d conte m pt f o r w hal e c o n se rv a ti o n f o r y e a r s . B efo re i t jo in e d th e IWC a y e a r ago, th e Spanis h r e fu s e d to fo ll o w re co m m endations by th e IWC n o t to in c r e a s e th e le v e l o f k i l l . I n s te a d , a t th e u rg in g o f th e Ja p a n e se p a r tn e r s in th e two sh o re s t a t i o n s , th e k i l l wa s t r i p l e d . A ll s p e c ie s wer e ta k e n , in c lu d in g th e r a r e b lu e an d hu mpb ack w hale s as w e ll as th e more p l e n t i f u l f i n an d sp er m w hale s p e c ie s . At th e sam e ti m e , S pain wa s p ro v id in g s a n c tu a ry an d f a c i l i t i e s to th e p i r a t e sh ip S ie r r a an d i t s s i s t e r s h ip s in th e C an ar y I s la n d s . When th e IWC s e t a q u o ta o f 143 f i n w hale s in 198 0 fo r S p a in , th e go ve rn m en t f i l e d an o b je c tio n , announcin g i t s i n te n tio n to a ll o w a h ig h e r k i l l . The U n it ed S ta te s G ov er nm en t, pro dded by C ongre ss , w ar ned S pain o f th e s a n c tio n s a ffo rd e d in th e P e lly an d Pa ck wo od /M ag nu son Am en dm en ts. S pain re fu s e d to w it hdra w th e o b je c tio n , b u t p io u s ly pro m is ed n o t to b re a c h th e 143 q u o ta b e fo re th e IWC ju ly 1980 m e e ti n g , when i t w ou ld seek r e c o n s id e r a tio n . We b e lie v e t h a t t h i s p ro m is e was a d e c e it to a v o id U.S. s a n c tio n s . A cco rd in g to so u rc e s in s id e th e S p a n is h w h ali n g o p e ra tio n , th e w h a le rs had ta k e n 161 f i n w h ale s a s o f Ju ne 3 0 th , th r e e we eks b e fo re th e IWC m eeti n g open ed in E n g la n d . A noth er 101 f i n w hale s w ere ta k e n in th e f i r s t 23 days o f J u ly by th e th r e e S panis h c a tc h e r b o a ts . On Ju ly 2 4 th , in th e m id dle o f th e IWC m e e ti n g , th e S panis h com m is si oner made a h a n d -w rin g in g p le a f o r a h ig h e r q u o ta an d d ra m a ti c a lly announce d h i s c o u n tr y was w it h d raw in g i t s o b je c tio n . 44

The IWC th en a g ree d to in c r e a s e th e 19 80 q u o ta , lu m pin g i t to g e th e r w it h th e 19 81 q u o ta f o r a tw o -y ear t o t a l o f 44 0 f in w hale s w it h a maximum in an y on e y e a r o f 240 w h a le s. T h is y e a r, th e r e f o r e , S p ain ca n ta k e 240 w h a le s . T his d e a l so unds l ik e i t sh o u ld s a t i s f y S pain an d g e t i t o f f th e ho ok w it h th e U .S . But w a i t ! Our so u rc e s in S pain sa y th e S panis h w h a le rs had a lre a d y ta k e n 26 2 f i n w hale s by th e ti m e t h e i r 24 0 q u o ta was v o te d . And th e w hali ng se a so n h as c o n ti n u e d w it h s c o re s more k i l l e d . The ow ne r o f th e S p an is h o p e r a tio n , Juan Masso , in s t r u c t e d h i s cr ew s l a s t May to ig n o re th e q u o ta s an d harp oon ev ery w hal e th e y co u ld f in d . Spain h a s s te a d f a s t ly re fu s e d to a ll o w o b s e rv e rs a t th e two w h ali n g s t a t i o n s . The w h o le sa le c h e a ti n g w i l l c o n ti n u e u n t i l in d ep e n d en t o b s e rv e rs a re in p la c e . U n fo rtu n a te ly , th e U .S . h as do ne l i t t l e to en co u ra g e su ch o b s e rv e rs in S pain o r e ls e w h e re . P eru l a s t y e a r re o p en ed i t s w h a li n g s t a t i o n a f t e r jo in in g th e IWC ev en th ough i t s w hal e q u o ta wa s z e ro . N oth in g wa s do ne by th e IWC to p e n a liz e P eru f o r t h i s b l a t a n t v i o l a t i o n , an d P eru c o n ti n u e s to b a r in d ep e n d en t o b s e rv e rs . In C h ile , i t i s a p p a re n t t h a t th e f a c to r y / c a tc h e r s h ip co n d u cti n g w h a li n g th e r e i s o p e ra tin g in t o t a l s e c re c y . The c a tc h s t a t i s t i c s from t h is fo rm er Ja p a n e se tr a w le r a r e a p p a re n tly n o t b e in g re p o rte d to th e C h il e a n govern m ent. The c a tc h s t a t i s t i c s l i s t e d by th e B ure au o f I n t e r n a ti o n a l W ha lin g S t a t i s t i c s f o r 19 77 an d 1 9 7 8 , th e f i r s t two y e a rs t h a t th e Pa ulmy S ta r No. 3 wa s w ork in g, do n o t l i s t an y f a c to r y - s h ip w h a li n g . Th e Paulmy S ta r No. 3 i s c l a s s i f i e d as a f a c to r y sh ip by th e IWC. A cco rd in g to so u rc e s in C h ile , th e Pa ulm y S ta r i s now re na m ed th e Ju an Noven o an d i s c o n ti n u in g to wo rk o f f th e C h il e a n c o a s t. I f i t i s p ro c e s s in g th e w hale s on b o a rd , th en i t i s in v i o la t io n o f th e f a c to r y - s h ip p r o h ib itio n v o te d by th e IWC l a s t y e a r. The U n it ed S ta te s sh o u ld d e te rm in e how many w hale s hav e been ta k e n by t h i s f a c to r y / c a tc h e r sh ip s in c e 19 7 7 . So ut h K or ea n w h a le rs a re i n a p p a re n t v i o la t io n o f th e z ero q u o ta on f i n w h a le s. Th ey c la im th e doze ns o f w h ale s ta k e n a re Bry de s w h a le s, b u t in d e p e n d e n t s c i e n t i s t s sa y th e w h ale s a r e to o la rg e to be o f th e s m a ll e r B ry des s p e c ie s . South K ore a h as se rv ed to " la u n d er" th e i l l i c i t w hal e m ea t from Ta iw an an d bound fo r Ja p a n . In Ja p an i t s e l f , th e r e a re in d ic a tio n s o f w id e sp re a d v io la tio n s o f q u o ta s an d r e g u la tio n s by th e c o a s ta l w h a le rs . The U .S . o b se rv e r in Ja pan l a s t y e a r fo und a v e ry h ig h p e rc e n ta g e o f l a c t a t i n g an d o th e r fe m ale w hale s ta k e n in h i s p a r t i a l o b s e r v a tio n s . 45

And Ja pan h a s c o n ti n u e d f o r y e t a n o th e r y e a r to s u p p o rt th e o u tl a w w h ale rs - - an d th e c h e a te r s w ith in th e IWC - - by b u y in g t h e i r wha le m ea t an d by p ro v id in g equip m ent an d e x p e r tis e . Taiyo F is h e ry Company, w hic h i s b eh in d th e S ie r r a p i r a t e s an d th e Tai w an es e o u tl a w w h a le rs , i s tr y in g to s e l l th o u sa n d s o f to n s o f wha le m ea t fr om th o s e o p e r a tio n s . The m eat, 800 to n s in O port o, P o rtu g a l, fr om th e S ie r r a an d more th a n 2 ,0 0 0 to n s in Kao hs iu ng from th e T ai w anes e s h ip s , i s to o " h o t" r i g h t now f o r im p o rta ti o n in to Ja p a n . So T a iy o , th ro u g h i t s dummy com panie s, h as bee n se e k in g b u y e rs in E uro pe an d e ls e w h e re . Th e m ea t i s v a lu e d a t some $ 1 ,5 0 0 p e r to n , so th e y have more th a n $4 m illio n t i e d up r ig h t now . We have c o n fi rm ed t h a t th e y a re se e k in g to s e l l i t to an IW C -n ation w h a li n g comp an y, w hic h c o u ld th e n * pre su m ab ly " la u n d e r" th e m ea t f o r r e -e x p o r t to Ja p a n .

WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE

The q u e s ti o n t h a t m us t be ask ed in t h i s h e a rin g i s how ca n the United States regain its leadership and bring about a rapid en d to co m m er ci al w h a li n g ? Has th e U .S . b een so co mpr om ised by th e bo wh ead is s u e an d so pressured by the whaling nations that it has lost the ability -- o r th e w ill - - to p u rsu e a s tr o n g p o lic y a g a in s t com m erc ia l w h ali n g ? I f t h i s i s th e c a s e , th en th e A d m in is tr a tio n h as b e tr a y e d th e Am erican p e o p le , who a re overw helm in gly oppose d to th e s la u g h te r t h a t has d riv e n th e g r e a t w h ale s c lo s e to e x tin c tio n . We s tr o n g ly rec om me nd t h a t C ongre ss dem and a r e tu r n to th e p o lic y o f v ig o ro u s o p p o s itio n to com m er ci al w h a li n g . The la w s t h a t Con gr es s a d o p te d sh o u ld be u sed to b rin g ab o u t co m p li an ce w it h IWC w hal e c o n s e rv a tio n m e a su re s. U n le ss th e s a n c tio n s o f th e P e lly Amendment an d th e Pa ck woo d/M ag nu so n Amendment a re made c re d ib le th ro u g h t h e i r u se on th e o u tl a w n a tio n s an d IWC c h e a te r s , th e U .S . w i l l be ig n o re d . T her e sh o u ld be no doubt t h a t much o f th e p ro g re s s made a t th e IWC s in c e 1974 wa s du e to th e r e a l th r e a t o f U .S . s a n c tio n s . We c a l l on th e A d m in is tr a tio n to c e r t i f y , u n d er th e P e lly Amendment, Ja p a n , th e S o v ie t U nio n, S p a in , P e ru an d Taiwan f o r t h e i r su b v e rsio n o f IWC w hale c o n s e rv a tio n m ea su re s. C h il e sh o u ld a ls o be c e r t i f i e d i f i t i s fo und to be in v i o la t io n . The m os t b a s ic s te p to g u a ra n te e com pli ance i s to p u t independent observers on the factory fleets and in each shore s t a ti o n . The U n it ed S ta te s sh o u ld im m ed ia te ly p r e s s a l l w h a li n g n a tio n s to im ple m en t th e IW C's o b s e rv e r sche me r i g h t now. The w id esp re ad c h e a ti n g w i l l c o n ti n u e u n t i l t h i s i s done. The U .S . sh o u ld is s u e a s t e m w arn in g to Jap an t h a t th e o u tl a w w h ali n g sc a n d a l w i l l n o t be t o le r a t e d an y lo n g e r. The A d m in is tr a tio n

68-796 0 —80 ----- 4 46

sh ould demand that Japanese authorities conduct a thorough and open investigation of the outlaw whaling activities of Taiyo Fishery Company and other Japanese interests. A sim ilar investiga­ t i o n sh o u ld b e dem an de d o f N orw ay , w h ere a m a jo r b an k an d an insurance company have held partial ownership in the Sierra o p e r a tio n . In the past year, the three South American whaling nations h av e made com m it m en ts t o go o u t o f w h a lin g . B ut p r e s s u r e fr om the Japanese whaling interests in Peru, Chile and Brazil has forced those countries to back off on the commitments. The United States should approach those governments at a high level to influence th em to s t i c k t o t h e i r p l a n s . And t h e J a p a n e s e G overn m ent s h o u ld be warned to keep their agressive whaling companies out of the affairs of the South American governments. Similar lobbying efforts should be directed at all IWC member nations to build support for another moratorium vote next y e a r . Th e tim e t o b e g in t h i s i s no w, n o t a t th e l a s t m in u te as has been the case in recent years. The Japanese are surely practicing their brand of strong-arm diplomacy at this very moment to keep their own industry and all their far-flung whale meat suppliers in business. Ab ove a l l , th e U .S . s h o u ld e n s u r e t h a t n o n -w h a lin g n a t i o n s l i k e Can ad a and S o u th A f r i c a do n o t a g a i n s a b o ta g e w h a le c o n s e r v a ­ t i o n p r o p o s a ls a t th e IWC. If the United States does not reassert its leadership in this treaty organization, then the whalers w ill continue to block progress, the whales w ill slide ever nearer to oblivion, and t h e w h a li n g co m m is sio n w i l l sm oke i t s l a s t p i p e , t o p a r a p h r a s e Melville, and then itself evaporate in the final puff. 47

Mr. Bonker. Thank you for an excellent statement. I have ques­ tions, but I will move to the next witness. Mrs. Stevens.

STATEMENT OF CHRISTINE STEVENS, SECRETARY. SOCIETY FOR ANIMAL PROTECTIVE LEGISLATION Mrs. Stevens. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think you have heard such a comprehensive rundown of what happened at the Int ern a­ tional Whaling Commission meeting that I will just highlight my statement. You have a copy, if I may ask to have it put into the record. Mr. B onker. The subcommittee would be most appreciative. Your statement will be included in the record. Mrs. Stevens. As you have heard, the Scientific Committee rec­ ommended a zero quota on sperm whales taken from Japa nese shore stations, but the Whalers Club got together again, and pro­ vided Japa n with 890 male sperm whales and 11.5 percent female so-called bycatch. Mr. B onker. Incidentally, I recall in Mr. Frank’s statem ent he said the female was zero and not 11.5 percent. He said the North Pacific sperm whale quota has been lowered to 890 males and to zero females. That is not correct, is it? Mrs. Stevens. It is zero. The quota is zero but they are allowed the bycatch. Mr. Bonker. That is 11.5 percent? Mrs. Stevens. That is correct. You see, they say they cannot tell when they are about to kill them whether they are male or female. One way you can definitely tell is tha t females never get as big as the largest males. However, if they want to think: that must be a small male and then kill a female, that is what they do. Mr. Bonker. Some judgment is required? Mrs. S tevens. I see you have a copy of “Outlaw Whaling for 1980.” Mr. Bonker. I carry it with me everywhere. Mrs. Stevens. That has quite a detailed description of what Mr. Gosho who is the American observer at the shore station has seen. Now we only have him there for 15 percent of the time. That means that 85 percent of the whales are not observed; but when he was present—let me read a few words from this. In his ann ual report to the IWC, Gosho noted tha t “94 out of the 140 dead sperm whales he saw were females—roughly 67 percent.” That is an awfully long way from 11.5 percent. The majority were females. He only witnessed 8 percent of the total reported catch of 1,730 whales. Nevertheless, he somehow managed to wit­ ness the landing of 28 percent of the total number of females which the Japanese claimed they had killed. So when you already have an area where the Scientific Commit­ tee said: this should be zero quota, males, females, everything, and what you have is far too high a quota reached—in another of those 2 a.m. sessions, I may add—and on top of th at you have no proper observation and such observation as you do have leads to the unquestionable conclusion that the Japanese shore station is cheat­ ing, you have a terrible situation. 48 The Scientific Committee has already said that even if no sperm whales are killed in that area, the population will continue to decline for a considerable period. On top of that, four different layers of wrong things are being done. So the one thing tha t we can do immediately is to get an observ­ er there for 100 percent of the time. That should be done without any hesitation. However small the budget may be in the United States this year, it is not too small for that. Mr. Bonker. Could you hold on for 1 second? I really think, Mrs. Stevens, in view of the testimony today tha t we ought to write a letter to Mr. Frank in the strongest terms possible recommending that an independent observer be stationed there so tha t we can have a more accurate count or at least some check on the possible infractions or violations of the limits tha t have been set. I think we will send such a letter. Mrs. S tevens. Excellent. I think that is most important. If you extrapolate, you can see there was an infraction, but you cannot absolutely say it unless an observer were actually there. However, I think that that brings me to another point. The burden of proof really should be on Jap an to show that they have stopped buying whale meat from Taiwan. A tremendous effort was made by Greenpeace to establish this fact. They had to drive around in taxicabs taking photographs out of the windows and so on. You really cannot expect nongovernmen­ tal observer organizations----- Mr. Bonker. Governmental officials do things like th at. Mrs. Stevens. It is all right to do it. The question is how can you get enough people doing it. In other words, at this point, they apparently have stopped sending whale meat through Korea; how­ ever, there is a rumor that instead of tha t, they are transferring whale meat right at sea. That is very, very difficult to establish. How is anybody going to find that out unless they can get aboard one of these whaling ships which is extremely difficult to do? So I think tha t there has to be strong demand to Japan to assume the burden of proof. We recommend that Jap an should be certified under the Pelly amendment and Packwood-Magnuson amendment immediately, based on all of the things that have already taken place, and then we should follow up, because we will almost certainly find additional reasons for certification in their shore station, or else if we do not, we will be protecting the whales. In other words, forcing the whalers to at least follow the very modest bit of restriction that still exists there. I was glad to see Mr. Frank’s stateme nt “I will continue to remind member countries of the provisions of the Packwood-Mag­ nuson and Pelly amendments and my inte nt to invoke sanctions under them whenever it is app ropriate.” But I am afraid that his view of when it is appropriate is not strong enough. I hope that you, Mr. Chairman, will ask for prompt action on certification. I unde rstan d that certification for Taiwan has been started, but I do not believe it has for any of the other nations which Mr. Van Note mentioned. Spain is a very serious area. Mr. Bonker. I wonder how you approach certification for Taiwan in view of the fact we no longer recognize Taiwan? 49

Mrs. Stevens. You may well ask that. Mr. Bonker. Maybe Mr. Reagan could pursue that certification. [Laughter.] You do not have to comment on that. Mrs. Stevens. Thank you. I would emphasize again tha t certifi­ cation of Japan and of Spain are the very highest priority, based on observations at the last International Whaling Commission meeting. We can have an observer, an American observer, in the Japanese shore station. There is no problem with doing that. Simply hire him and send him over. However, Brazil, Chile, and Peru have, according to the infractions subcommittee, indicated their willing­ ness to accept observers under the international observer scheme of the IWC. It also noted the concerns expressed by Peru on the qualification of observers which it would permit at Peruvian operations. That does not bode very well for getting an objective observer in there. The only time we know of when there has been an inspection at all was after Felipe Benavides insisted that an observer go in and, to quote from Benavides, “they were very secretive and acted as if they were under orders to answer no questions.” I am now refer­ ring to the people at the whaling station. Of 46 whales captured while the station was under inspection, 24 were undersized. Benavides himself witnessed the death of a 66-foot long blue whale dying of a wound made by a harpoon and, she was washed up on the beach in Conchan, Peru, in 1978. While you cannot say who harpooned the blue whale, it seems fairly likely that it was the Peruvian whalers who did it. That is Kinkai, which is a Japanese company. Now in Chile, attempts to find out anything about the whaling operation are extremely difficult. Greenpeace’s Campbell Plowden was harassed by a midnight visit by the DINA, Chile’s secret police, when he was trying to obtain inform ation on Chile’s whal­ ing practices. They opened the back of his camera, exposed a roll of film, and according to Plowden, “I barely managed to recover my address book one agent had absentm indedly slipped into his pocket. They left after an hour and a half without ever telling me why they had come.” As you can see, it is not easy to find out what actually is going on. I think the need for a really effective observer scheme is of top priority. There was a discussion at the meeting, but it never became finalized, that a Dutch observer might go and observe the Spanish whaling station. That would be very, very desirable. Again, if the United States could put some money into having a decent observer system it would help a great deal. I think it would also help to bring an end to commercial whaling because of all the infractions which they are going to witness. You asked me to comment also on the cold harpoons. Spain displayed extraordinary insensitivity when it refused to support even a ban on cold harpoons for the largest whales. It is only Spain and South Korea that still use these antique weapons to kill the large whales. The Spanish commissioner called them something new that we are not used to, referring to the explosive harpoon; but we looked it up and found it was invented in 1840, so apparently there has been 50 a spectacular lack of communication. He justified the cold harpoon because, “fin whales are used mostly for human consumption and we do not want to lose an important part of the meat. In a way it is senseless, if we lose a part of the whale we are killing.’’ But all the big whaling nations have been using explosive har ­ poons, so th at has to be discounted. A report from a crewman on a Spanish whaling vessel reiterates the fact that the explosive harpoons are not used, and states, “once a whale is harpooned, the boat is stopped, the whale is allowed to pull the boat for 1 or 2 miles until it tires, when it is harpooned again. “Then the whale is inflated to burst it inside and also to keep it afloat.” « The leader at the IWC meeting against cruel methods of killing was the Australian Commissioner, Derek Ovington. He made an excellent statement from which I would like to quote jus t a little bit if there is time. « I do not believe that because we are government officials we can close our eyes to what is happening. With greater emphasis on harvesting minke whales, the Com­ mission has unintentionally increased the inhumanity of its overall operations. Australia regards this as morally unacceptable and as not being in accord with the wishes expressed by all Commissioners to reduce any cruelty involved in whaling. It is the firm opinion of my government that the infliction of any pain is com­ pletely unacceptable in any circumstances. Japan is the nation, however, which, after a very slow sta rt— when it was first brought up that humane killing should be dis­ cussed, the Japanese Commissioner refused to even allow a discus­ sion of it—has now done serious research. Mr. Hasui of the Japa nese Whaling Association submitted a paper at the IWC on humane methods of killing, and detonation sounds by far the most promising. I quote: “With this method, a mechanism in the head of the harpoon ignites when the harpoon passes through a whale’s body. The whale is killed instantaneously by the shock waves from the detonation.” Then the report described a test on two Brydes whales. One died instantaneously, stopping all movements when it was struck. “The other whale continued to brea the and swim slowly though not making any attempt to escape after the harpoon strike. The swim­ ming slowed down and a minute late r the whale stopped breathing and lay motionless on the surface. Complete cessation of movement • and death were confirmed 5 minutes after the harpoon strike.’’ This would indicate that in all probability that whale was actual­ ly unconscious, although not instantly killed. However, Commis­ sioner Yonezawa said they simply couldn’t have this ready within a « year. We believe tha t when they have gone that far with it—and I had some discussion with several of th e Japanese members of the delegation—that indeed it would be possible to have it ready, and I think it is something that we should insist upon. Obviously our main thrust is to have a total moratorium on commercial whaling, but whether we can achieve that next year or not, I don’t know. In addition, even though we might achieve th at—and we should work for it hard—it is only a moratorium and we can’t guarantee, far into the future, that there will never be whaling again. 51 Therefore, I believe this is the time to press hard. There is very capable research and development going on, and we should insist tha t it be completed. Japan and Norway are both capable of doing this work. I think we should demand it of both of them —because they are the ones tha t are killing the minke whales in particu lar—and besides it is very hard to deal with the Soviet Union. I was asked to comment on U.S. leadership. I did mention the unfortunate decision that was reached in the small hours of the morning on killing of sperm whales in the North Pacific. I believe that the United States really has a lot more strength which it could use than in fact it is using. We believe tha t efforts should be undertaken immediately to line up the necessary support for next year’s meeting. The voting on the sperm whale moratorium demonstrated, when it lost by a single vote, that there is not a consistent blocking vote by whaling nations and that if the re is a real effort we can win. Of course, we must make a tremendous effort with Canada. I think within Canada there is quite a movement already to change the sperm whale moratorium position because it was an erroneous vote by the Commissioner. As Mr. Van Note has mentioned, President Carter has given very clear directives on the protection of whales 1 hey should be acted on with strength and wisdom at the next meeting, and nongovernmental observers are ready and willing to assist in every way possible. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [Mrs. Stevens’ prepared stateme nt follows:] 52

P repa red Sta te men t of Chri st ine Ste vens, S ecretary, Society for Anim al P rotective L egisl at ion

THE INTERNATIONAL OBSERVER SCHEME AND IWC ACTIONS ON THE COLD HARPOON

Failure of the International Whaling Commission to provide unbiased observers of all commercial whaling severely undermines the Com­ mission's effectiveness.

At this year's IWC meeting, the proposal for a moratorium on the killing of sperm whales failed by a single vote. The Scientific Committee recommended a zero quota on sperm whales taken from Ja pa n’s shore stations, but the "whalers' club" got together again and provided Japan with 890 male sperm whales and an 11.5% female "by-catch." It is extremely doubtful that this requirement will be respected, based on last year's observations. *

The united States provides an observer to the Japanese shore stations, but he only was able to observe about 15% of the whales brought in. I would draw your attention to page 11 of Outlaw a Whalers 1980, and I quote:

INFRACTIONS REPORTED: During the 1978-1979 season of the IWC, Merrill Gosho reported 13 infractions of IWC regulations. Twelve of these involved the taking of lactating sperm whales. Of even greater importance, however, was the tremendous discrepancy between the sex ratio of sperm whales that he saw and the ratio reported by the whaling companies and inspectors from the Japanese Fisheries Agency. In his annual report to the IWC, Gosho noted that 94 out of the 140 dead sperm whales he saw were females— roughly 67%. While he only witnessed 8% of the total reported catch of 1,730 whales, he somehow managed to witness the landing of 28% of the total number of females which the Japanese claimed they had killed. The combined efforts of seven different J.F.A. inspectors produced even fewer observa­ tions, but their estimate that the catch was composed of about 25% fe m ale s mo re c lo s e ly match ed th e 14% fe m ale f ig u r e re p o rte d by th e w h a li n g co mpa nies f o r th e un ob se rv ed sp er m s.

Gosho conclu ded t h a t th e In s p e c ti o n pr og ra m was "i n ad eq u ate * and d ip lo m a tic a lly s ta te d t h a t 'b ec au se a h ig h e r p erc en ta g e o f fe m ale s o cc u rr e d in th e obs er ve d c a tc h th an in th e uno bs er ve d c a tc h , and be ca us e a p p ro x i­ m a te ly 85 p e rc e n t o f th e t o t a l c a tc h was n o t o bserv ed, com pliance w it h th e IWC r e g u la tio n re g a rd in g th e fe m ale spe rm w hale a llo c a t io n cann ot be c o n c lu s iv e ly a s c e r t a in e d .* A lthough th e re p o rte d c a tc h o f fe m ale w hal es was w ith in th e all o w an ce p e rm it te d by th e b y -c a tc h q u o ta f o r th e N o rt h P a c if ic sperm w h a le , th e re s p e c t o f Ja pa ne se w h ale rs f o r th e s c i e n t i f i c ad v ic e t o n o t k i l l fe m ale s and th e v e r a c it y o f t h e i r d a ta became h ig h ly q u e s ti o n a b le .

Thu s, in an a re a in w hic h th e S c i e n t i f i c Com m itt ee e s ti m a te s t h a t th e p o p u la ti o n w i l l c o n ti n u e t o d e c li n e ev en i f no w hale s are k i l l e d , such evid en ce as th e re is p o in ts t o a b y -c a tc h o f fe m ale w hale s w hi ch g ro s s ly ex ce ed s th e IWC a ll o w a n c e .

The U n it e d S ta te s should im m e d ia te ly a c t t o p ro v id e a co m pe te nt o b s e rv e r a t a l l ti m es a t th e c o a s ta l w h a li n g s ta tio n s wh ere sperm w hale s are b ein g la n d e d . I f IWC re g u la tio n s are b e in g v io la t e d , th e y should fo rm an im p o rta n t p a r t o f th e c e r t i f i c a t i o n o f Ja pan und er th e P e lly Amendm ent and th e Pac kwood-M agnuson Amendment f o r underm in in g th e p r o te c tio n o f en dan ger ed w hale s und er th e I n t e r ­ n a tio n a l C onvention on W h a li n g ,

In o th e r c o u n trie s whe re v io la t io n s ha ve be en re p o rte d b y in d epen den t in v e s tig a to r s , th e re is no o f f i c i a l in t e r n a t io n a l o b s e rv e r a t a l l . S p ain ha s no su ch o b s e rv e r and, acco rd in g to a cre w mem ber, ha s k i l l e d w ha le s o v e r th e q u o ta and ha s k i l l e d w hale s suc h as b lu e s and humpbacks f o r w hi ch no q u o ta e x is ts f o r an y com m erc ia l w h a li n g o p e ra tio n . W haling in th e a re a a lr e a d y decim ate d by th e p ir a t e w h a le r “S i e r r a , " th e Spanis h w h a li n g sh ip s mu st be c o n tr o ll e d b e fo re th e damage to w hale p o p u la ti o n s in th e a re a is ir r e v o c a b le .

A h ig h ly d e s ir a b le s o lu tio n wou ld be f o r Th e N e th e rl a n d s t o se nd an o b s e rv e r to account f o r a l l th e w hal es la nded b y th e Span is h w h a le rs . The U n it e d S ta te s should su p p o rt such a mo ve, b o th m o ra ll y and f i n a n c i a l l y . We s tr o n g ly recom mend an o b s e rv e r sy st em in whi ch n o n -w h ali n g n a ti o n s p la y an a c tiv e p a r t . Exchange o f o b serv ers bet wee n th e tw o m a jo r w h a li n g n a tio n s — R u ssia and Japan— 54

has long baen a subject of concern. The charge that a Russian captain had heavily overstepped his quota was never satisfac­ torily resolved. At the present time, all whaling in the Southern Hemisphere is observed by a Russian observer on Japanese factory ships and vice versa.

The report of the Infractions Sub-Committee July, 1980, contains the following statement: "The Sub-Committee noted that Brazil, Chile and Peru had indicated their willingness to accept observers under the International Observer Scheme of the IWC. It also noted the concerns expressed by Peru on the qualification of observers which it would permit at Peruvian operations." To date, however, the only information on Peruvian and Chilean vAialing by persons * outside the industry itself has been sparse. In Peru an inspector found employees of the whaling station, Kinkai, a Japanese company, unwilling to reveal information— hardly startling, given the fact that a 66-foot long blue whale dying of a wound made by a harpoon * was washed up on the beach at Conchan, Peru, in 1978. Peru's leading conservationist, Felipe Benavides, witnessed the death of this magnificent animal.

Concerning the only inspection so far recorded for the Peruvian whaling station, Benavides wrote that the employees were "very secretive and acted as if they were under orders to answer no questions." Of 46 whales captured while the station was under inspection, 24 were undersized.

In Chile, Greenpeace's Campbell Plowden was harassed by a midnight visit by Chilean police officers when he sought to obtain informa­ tion on Chile's whaling practices, and he was denied the opportunity to go out on a whaling vessel. The DINA, Chile ’s secret police, opened the back of his camera and exposed a roll of film. According to Plowden, "I barely managed to recover my address book one agent had 'absentmindedly’ slipped into his pocket. They left after about an hour and a half without ever telling me why they had come."

Cold Harpoons

The united States* proposal to ban cold harpoons was not accepted. However, it was adopted for whales larger than minkes. Only two nations are known to use cold harpoons on large whales: Spain and South Korea. ♦ Spain displayed extraordinary insensitivity when it refused to support even a ban on cold harpoons for the largest of whales.

s> 55

The explosive ha rpoon— used by all other whaling nations on the large whales— "is something new that we are not used to," said the Spanish Commissioner. (The explosive harpoon was invented

in 1840.)

Spain hunts down hundreds of fin whales— the second largest of

whale species, reaching 80 feet and 100 tons. The Spanish Com­ missioner justified the cold harpoon because "fin whales are used mostly for human consumption" and "we do not want to lose an

important part of the meat. In a way it is senseless if we lose part of the whale we are killing."

A crew member aboard one of the Spanish whaling ships (owned by * Masso Hermanos) reports how the fin whales are hunted: "Explosive harpoons are not used as these are maintained to damage the meat.

Once a whale is harpooned, the boat is stopped and the whale is

allowed to pull the boat for one or two miles until it tires, when a it is harpooned again. Then the whale is inflated to burst it inside and also to keep it afloat."

The Australian Commissioner sharply criticized the cruelty of the cold harpoon in a statement: "I do not believe that because we

are government officials we can close our eyes to what is happen­ ing. With greater emphasis on harvesting minke whales, the

Commission has unintentionally increased the inhumanity of its

overall operations. Australia regards this as morally unacceptable and as not being in accord with the wishes expressed by all Com­ missioners to reduce any cruelty involved in whaling."

He continued: "The swing towards greater use of the cold harpoon means that on average whales taken under the aegis of the Inter­ national Whaling Commission are n ow taking longer to die and are

in greater pain than has been the case in past. The justification for the wanton disregard of the normally accepted animal rights

is that there is less damage to that portion of the animal taken by man.

"It is wrong that an industry, so subject to public scrutiny as whaling, could sit by while realising that the method of killing used is not even the most humane currently available. The position of the International Whaling Commission is morally indefensible by any standards.

* "It is the firm opinion of my government that the infliction of any unavoidable pain is completely unacceptable in any circum­ stances,” stated the Australian. "Perhaps because whales are killed far from land and not under the public eye, or possibly because humans do not hear the cries of dying whales, laws and methods used in the killing of whales need to be improved greatly.

"Information provided last year by a working group of the Technical Committee made it clear that with respect to whaling, death is rarely instantaneous and some whales suffer terrible injuries sometimes for a considerable period of time. Last year the Com­ mission recommended the prohibition of the use of the cold grenades to kill whales larger than minke whales," concluded the Australian Commissioner.

At the next session, the United States should put major emphasis on completing this work by obtaining three-quarters majority sup­ port for a ban on cold harpoons for minke whales. This is an area in which Japan, after a very slow start, is now leading the research effort. Most promising is detonation. To quote from a report by Shigeru Hasui of the Japan Whaling Association: "With this method, a mechanism in the head of the harpoon ignites when the harpoon passes through a whale's body. The whale is killed instantaneously by the shock waves from the detonation."

Describing a test on two Bryde's whales, the report states: "One Bryde's whale experiencing detonation died instantly, stopping all movements when it was struck . . . The other whale continued to breathe and swim slowly, though not making any attempt to escape, even after the harpoon strike. The swimming slowed down and a minute later the whale stopped breathing and lay motionless on the surface. Complete cessation of movement and death were confirmed five minutes after the harpoon strike."

The United States should encourage the completion of this well- designed device. Both Japan and Norway have the capacity to carry out the necessary research and development. With one whale instantly killed and the other clearly stunned with no recovery of consciousness before death, the detonation method is clearly the most humane so far devised for the killing of any whale, whether large or small.

To understand the suffering inflicted on whales harpooned with cold harpoons, a film of a typical kill should be viewed. How­ ever, an hour-by-hour account of the killing of a sperm whale off the Azores last year will give you an idea. The personality of this whale cosies through the log of his agony, as he sought to outwit the persistent whalers, as a resourceful and courageous being of long experience and enormous will to live. (S ee pages 7 an d 8 fo r "A 24 -H ou r Sperm Wh ale K illin g ." ) 57

To comment, as you requested, on U. S. leadership and on the role played by non-governmental organizations at the last iwc meeting, I believe the United States can now resume the leader­ ship role which it has lost during the past three years of struggling with the bowhead situation. Mon-governmental organi­ zations helped to obtain a three-year block quota on bowheads which will, we hope, give the Alaskan Eskimo Whaling Commission time to assure itself of the desperate plight of the bowhead whale. We believe that AEWC has received very poor advice from its legal counsel. Further, the Department of the Interior has also failed to give serious consideration to the biological reality of the situation. Rather than looking at the whales from the standpoint of "the people of the whale," Eskimo whalers have been encouraged to take a type of posture similar to a labor union dealing with a corporation. If this emotional position can be put aside so that the AEWC looks the facts squarely in the face, it must surely conclude that lower quotas than those set this year by the iwc must be voluntarily adopted by the AEWC. Every assistance should be given by the government to enable the AEWC to act with true responsibility in the interest of Alaskan Eskimos and bowhead whales alike.

When I speak of U. S. leadership, I mean tough, hard, persistent fighting such as was needed but lacking this year in the sperm whale battle. After the shocking "No" vote by Canada against the sperm whale moratorium, which caused this urgently needed moratorium to fail, the United States, in effect, assisted Japan to obtain the quota of 890 male sperm whales with the 11.5% female by-catch mentioned earlier. Canadian sources indicate that the u. S. Commissioner, by insisting that a quota be set, led to this highly unfortunate result. Again, the decision was taken in two off-the-record meetings at about 2:00 in the morning.

The united States, assisted by a large majority of the 24 IWC member nations, clearly has more strength than it is, in fact, using. We believe that efforts should be undertaken immediately to line up the necessary support for next year's meeting. The voting on the sperm whale moratorium demonstrated, by its single­ vote loss, that there is not a consistent blocking vote by whaling nations.

President Carter's clear directives on the protection of whales must be acted on with strength and wisdom at the next meeting. Non-governmental observers are ready and willing to assist in every way possible. A 24-HOUR SPERM WHALE KILLING

The wha le had been ha rpoo ne d at 1422-S urf aces, spou tin g every 6 aw ay , sou nds , flu ke s hig h. 10 15 . The firs t ob serva tio n was log­ seconds, th e wha le c ircles t o the 1 623—Surfaces in op po site d ire ct io n, ged at 1215 w he n th e wha le, a bull right. lau nch in pu rs uit, canoa in to w sperm of ne ar ly 50 feet , surfac ed near 1 4 32-S o u n d s, flu ke s hig h, as th e ra pi dl y be hin d t he wha le. the canoa, w it h th e lau nch in fas t pur­ can oa hauls its elf close be hind the 1 630—Can oa approaches, th e wh ale suit. th e harpoo ne : on th e bo w, th ro w ­ wha le. Th e w ha le spou tin g every sounds. En gine s topp ed in ou r ing a lance jus t as the w ha le sounded. eig ht seconds just be fo re sounding. lau nch. App ar en tly th e ma ste r already rea l­ Th e ma ste r orders th e launch es to 1 655—Photog ra ph er and th ird obser­ ized th at th ey had an unusually wary bo th keep 14 m ile distance a way . ver tran sfer to th e lancing launch. and res ou rce ful wha le on their ha r­ 1445—Wa itin g, dead ca lm , brillia nt The har po on er goes ba ck in the po on . N orm al ly these wh alers ha r­ sun, decks to o h o t fo r bare feet . can oa. po on , chase, lance and ki ll th eir whales 1450-S u rf aces. 1 7 0 0 —Sound s again . in ab out an ho ur an d 2 0 minu tes . 1 4 5 5 —Canoa ha uling itself close fo r 17 07—Surfac es, cano a fo llo ws, laun ch ­ Alre ad y this wha le h ad succe eded in lancing, th e wha le sw im ming 2- 3 es keep d ista nt, wha le s pouting av oid ing th e lan cin g from the can oa fo r kn ots on th e surface . six seconds. tw o h ou rs, so th e ma ster had elec ted to 1 457—La nce th ro w n, th e wha le arches 1 711—Sound s again , flu kes hig h, as tr y to use th e lau nc h, w hi ch is ord in ­ its hu m p b ut shows no flu kes w hile cano a draw s near. ar ily not used fo r lan cin g. soundin g. He surfaces a m in ute 1 7 3 5 — Surfaces, lau nch chases. 1218—Wha le s urfaced, lau nch pur­ later, sho ws flu kes and sounds 1 7 3 6 — Soun ds, flu ke s hig h, as launch sues, lance th ro w n. im m ed ia te ly . com es close be hind . 1 235— Lance t hro w n tw ic e from canoa, 1 508—Passed a lin e to t he c anoa, bu t 1742—Surfaces and sounds af te r sp ou t­ th e har po on er havin g been tak en it is passed back to us mo me nts ing, flu ke s up , lau nch close be hind . ba ck ab oa rd th e can oa. later. Th e w ha le has tak en 1,0 00 1745— Su rfaces a nd sounds q uic kl y. 1 236— Anoth er lance th ro w n, the feet of line out on this dive . We 1746— Surfac es and sounds, flu kes up. wha le sounds, no fluke s show n. hear fo r th e f irst tim e th at the af t 1 750— Surfac es and sounds, flukes up . 1 2 4 2 -T h e c anoa signals the launches oarsm an, yo un ge r bro th er o f the 1751— Surfac es and sounds, flukes up . to c om e near, w ith ex tr a line rea dy ha rp oo ne r, was s tru ck in the chest 1 753—Surfaces and sounds, flu kes up. to pass to th e canoa. Th e wh ale and his oa r was br ok en by the 1758— Surfac es co ming fr om op po ­ has run o ut 2 ,7 0 0 f ee t of l ine in a whale's flu ke s whe n th e wh ale site direc tion, lau nch in pu rsuit. deep d ive. The m aster keeps te n­ was ha rp oo ne d. 1759— Sounds. sion on th e lin e, le ttin g i t pay ou t 1520—The mas ter is fe ed ing ou t 1800—Surfa ces and sounds on oppo site in spurts. lin e, w e pass th e ex tra line to the side of cano a from th e lau nch, the 1 2 5 0 —La un ch is standin g by w ith I can oa again. lau nch havin g to run past the canoa ex tra tu b o f lin e rove rea dy. 1528-S u rf aces again. to chase th e wha le. 1 3 0 5 -W a it in g , th e wh ale has been 1530-S o u n d s a t approach of lau nch. 1805—Surfaces . dow n H hou r now. 1 5 3 3 — Su rf aces," co mi ng from oppo site 1 808—Canoa is hauled hand over hand 1 3 0 8 -T h e w ha le surfaces 15 0 yards direc tion. up be hind th e wha le, the lance is aw ay fr om th e can oa. Th e can oa 1534— A noth er lance t hro w n, the th ro w n. The wha le sounds, his signals fo r th e lau nch as t he w haler s wh ale sou nds , no flu kes show n. A flu ke s rising ov er t he hea d of the bring in th e lin e hand o ver ha nd . po d o f do lphins swim s rig ht by the ha rp oo ne r, im m ed ia te ly in fr o n t of 1 3 1 2 -A fte r a bo ut 2 0 spouts th e wha le wh ale and lau nch ex hib itin g no a p­ th e cano a. The lancing line hangs sounds, flu ke s hig h, the c anoa b ein g pa re nt conc ern fo r th e whale's on one fluke fo r a m om en t be fore to wed slow ly be hind . pl ight. th e tail slides be neath th e surface. 1 333—Th e w ha le surfaces , s pouts 1 5 3 6 - Surfaces , sw im ming at rig ht Whale appears to s po ut b lood . th re e tim es and sounds again , flu ke s angles to t he canoa. 1 825—Surfaces an d sounds a m in ut e hig h. 1 5 3 7 - Sounds, flu kes hig h, d olph ins an d a half late r jus t as th e lau nch 1 3 4 8 —Surface s, sp ou tin g every 5- 6 surro un ding th e wh ale. reaches it . seconds, th e lau nch closes in. 1 5 3 8 - M ore d olph ins co mi ng to p lay 1 8 2 7 —Surface s, an oth er lance is 1 3 5 0 —Sounds, flu ke s high be fo re th e ar ou nd th e lan cin g lau nch. th ro w n in to th e whale's back from lau nch gets close enoug h fo r 1542-S u rf aces a stern o f us, lau nch in th e laun ch . The w ha le sounds lan cin g. ho t pu rs uit. whe n hit , turns, resurfaces and 1353-S u rf aces, sp ou tin g sligh tly 1 544-S o u n d s again be fore th e launch sounds, flu ke s up , resurfaces q uic k­ fas ter . can ge t nea r en ou gh . Th e can oa ly , seems m or e ag ita ted, perhaps 1 3 5 5 —Lance thro w n from lau nch as is hau lin g in on th e line. seriously wou nd ed , sounds w it h ­ th e wha le sounds. 1550-S u rf aces and d ives a t the ap ­ out show ing fluke s. 1 3 5 7 —Su rfaces a nd sounds at approach proach of th e lau nc h, flu ke s high. 1830-S urf aces going in opposite d i­ of th e laun ch , no f lukes shown. 1555-S urf aces, show s flu kes after 3 rectio n to th at indica ted by the har 1 4 1 7 —Surfa ces, spo uts 3 or 4 tim es spouts and sounds. po on lin e leading from the bo w o f and sou nds , flu ke s high at approach 1 600—Surfaces. th e canoa. Sp ou tin g appears pin k, of th e lau nch. 1 6 0 5-S o u n d s jus t in fr ont o f the every six seconds. 1 4 1 9 —Surfaces, show s flu kes quic kl y laun ch , flu kes hig h. Th e wh ale rs as it soun ds, th e lau nch circles, are st ill ha uling in lin e. 1832-S o u n d s, flu ke s up as laun ch races near. tryin g t o herd th e wha le, fri gh ten 1614-S u rf aces and sounds as soon as and exha us t it . The canoa signals the laun ch approache s. 1844-S u rf aces a nd sounds, flu ke s up , w it h a f lag and th e ha rpoo ne r is 1 620—Surface s close to us, spouting as la un ch approache s. tran sferred in to th e canoa. au di ble several hundred yard s 1 8 4 7 —Surfaces in op po site dire ct io n and sounds without showing flukes. 06 25 —Surfaces near us for a fe w 1849—Surfaces and sounds, flukes up, tinuing its slow circle on the sur­ spouts, and sounds as the launch as launch approaches. face. The canoa turns for final nears. A light breeze from the closing, the harpooner ready, 1851—Surfaces and sounds, flukes up, southeast has rippled the sea sur­ the whale sluggish, but he sounds as launch approaches, the timing face. The whale continues his when the lance is thrown, re­ of the whale is superb, staying on canny tactic of circling underwater the surface, getting every possible surfacing immediately at left 90 and surfacing as far away from the breath until the last possible mo ­ degrees angle. launch as possible, usually on the ment, sounding as the harpooner 07 35 —Sounds as a dolphin pod comes other side o f the canoa and in the stands tensed and ready to thro w. by leaping and cavorting. opposite direction of the harpoon 185 5—Surfaces near us. 1742 —Surfaces, dolphins have circled line. 185 7—Sounds, flukes high, as both and return. The whale is spouting 063 5—Surfaces and swims un til launch launches close in. every 10-13 seconds, some spouts is near, turns 9 0 degrees right and 1905—Surfaces, spouting every six are almost clear, others seem al­ sounds, now n ot showing flukes. most pure blood fountains. seconds, light inadequate to see if 063 7—Surfaces quickly in opposite 0746 -Sou nd s. The dolphins swim off the spouting is bloody. The launch­ direction and sounds, flukes high. at high speed, leaping in low eight- es pu t on their lights and check 064 3—Surfaces and sounds, flukes foo t arcs. The whale surfaces, with each other on diesel oil re­ high, afte r several spouts. seems tire d, confused, hurt. The serves. Our launch driver is for 064 4—Surfaces and sounds, flukes harpooner thrusts his lance 18 cutting the line and letting the high. times more, the canoa st8ys close. whale go, but the master, known 06 45 —Surfaces, launch close behind, 08 00 —Still lancing. for his tenacity, elects to h old on sounds before lance can be th row n. 08 07 —Still lancing, there is no point in to the whale through the night, 0646-Surface s in opposite direction counting. The harpooner is wo rk­ using the launches to herd the and sounds after three spouts. whale in the direction o f the island, ing close enough to jab the lance 06 47 —Surfaces and sounds, no flukes if possible. deeply, over and over. shown, as launch approaches. 08 17 —Still lancing, whale spouting 20 40 —Surfaces and sounds at the ap­ 06 55-Surfaces, apouting every 10-13 every 16 seconds, heavy blood, proach of the launch. seconds. The harpooner goes into he is lying still in the water, just Through the night the whalers worked the canoa, and the canoa creeps able to maintain his equilibrium. the harpoon line, trying always to keep up behind the whale, slowly, hand 08 20 —Th irty seconds between spouts, tension on it — paying ou t when the over hand. The canoa rows the heavy blood. whale sounded, hauling it in hand last 50 yards. The whale is swim­ 082 8—Occasional spout is clear o f over hand when he surfaced. The ming very slowly. The harpooner blood, the whale is wallowing but launches fo llow ed their same tactics, throws the lance repeatedly, in upright. harrying the whale, forcing it to dive the end using the lance to jab deep­ 084 1- Tw enty seconds between as quickly as possible, and always try ­ ly w ith ou t throwing. Twenty-one spouts, whale upright, canoa waits ing to herd it back toward the island. thrusts are made, and th e whale nearby for the death which must The master and harpooner got no begins spouting fountains of come soon. sleep, the other oarsmen got an hour or blood, but not at every spout. 0 9 0 0 -Heavy spout o f blood, the whale two over their oars. It is two days 07 05 —Sounds slowly, grievously rolls slightly, tail showing. afte r full moon, the night lit by its wounded. 09 12 —Having great diffi cu ltly staying soft, hazy presence, but no lancing is 07 20—Surfaces and swims slowly upright, the canoa and the launches attempte d during the night. The sea in a wide circle, the launch herd­ wait, an occasional spout is still is very calm. ing. free o f blood. The hunt begins again at dawn. 07 25 —Sounds, flukes askew, resurfaces 09 15 —Shows right flipper in a dizzy 06 00 —Surfaces briefly. immediately. slow-motion roll, one fluke 06 12—Surfaces and sounds when the 07 26 —Sounds, flukes up, resurfaces emerges. launch is within lancing distance. after a minute, spouting every 13 0 93 6-T ail showing constantly, the 06 22—Surfaces, the launch takes two seconds. Blood, swimming in a whale lying partially on his side. minutes to reach the whale, its circle. The canoa hand lines it­ 09 40 —Canoa moves in. diesel roaring, the whale sounds, self in slowly, passes the whale still 09 55 —The whale is dead. flukes high. taking in line, the whale con­

Prom Out law W ha le rs 1980, G reen p eace, San F r a n c is c o , CA. 60

Mr. Bonker. Thank you for an excellent statement. Now we move to our last witness, Patricia Forkan, representing the Humane Society of the United States. You may summarize your comments. STATEMENT OF MS. PATRICIA FORKAN, VICE PRESIDEN T FOR PROGRAM AND COMMUNICATIONS, THE HUMANE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES Ms. F orkan. I will try to summarize my comments. Many of them have been covered by previous speakers. I wanted to make one point at the outset. Tha t is tha t, having gone to the IWC since 1973, I th ink many of us are very frustrated because it seems that had we had our victory then for a 10-year * moratorium, we would almost be finishing it. Mr. Bonker. You would be near extinction. Ms. Forkan. Now we are heading into the 1981 meeting, and we would have hoped to have had a moratorium during all this time. * I have also been involved in Law of the Sea, which has been of interest to the prowhale groups because there is a marine mammal aspect to the Law of the Sea. I would like to cover that as it involves the IWC jurisdiction question. First, the one thing that is true about IWC throughout the years during which I have attended is that nothing has come easily. It has come only afte r a great deal of publicity and sometimes extrem e activities on the part of some of the nongovernmental groups. Initially that activity was led by the U.S. NGO’s. We were told tha t the activities of the NGO’s in those early days of supporting the moratorium and working in some of the other countries were, in fact, the reasons that we had any successes at all at IWC, and the few successes we did have were bit by bit by bit over the years. I tried to identify one very successful year. I imagine 1979 was one of the better ones with the moratorium on factory/ship sperm whaling and the others, and the concept of an Indian Ocean sanc­ tuary. Mr. Bonker. Staff informs me that is because I was there at tha t session. Ms. Forkan. And I was not. I seriously considered not going this year for tha t reason. < In any event, this year at the IWC I think many of us went with the idea that we did have a good chance for a moratorium, espe­ cially since there were so many more countries that were in favor of total protection. A number of new countries had joined the ♦ protectionist side. The scientific committee had a strong recommen­ dation, especially for zero on the North Pacific sperm whales. The moratorium hope was quickly dashed. We were forced into what I call trench warfare. We were only saving whales by tens and twenties when we hoped we would be saving them by the thousands. I don’t know why it was such an unusually difficult year, but it was. It may be we a re getting down to the point now where we are having to fight for every single whale tha t we save. 61 Both sides are digging in for the last stand. On the optimistic side, it may be tha t by 1982, with some of the South American countries going out of whaling, we will have reduced the whaling block enough that we have a real chance to win. One of the things I wanted to cover today was the jurisdictional question. What will the IWC look like even if we do get a moratori­ um? Many of us have worked on what we are calling an Interna­ tional Cetacean Commission. When the Marine Mammal Protection Act was passed, the United States did adopt certain management standards. One of the things we wanted to do was expand the coverage for cetaceans in a , single international body and to adopt something along the lines of optimum sustainable populations. When the new management procedure was adopted in 1974, it was my understanding the n—and I thin k if we looked up the information, we would find that the new management procedure was supposed to evolve toward an optimum sustainable population. Recently the new management procedure was looked at again and the scientists’ recommendations were to make the scheme even more conservative. Again, even if we don’t get a total moratorium, if we do get a more conservative approach to the new m anagement procedure, we could effectively lower quotas and perhaps get some more zero quotas. In any event, the action vis-a-vis IWC was to try to renegotiate the convention. At the same time the Law of the Sea had adopted an article 65 which concerned us greatly because it seemed to allow coastal states to manage cetaceans with a lesser standard tha n the new one agreed upon a t the IWC. Our fears regarding the language were confirmed at a 1978 IWC prep aratory meeting in Copenhagen. Canada presented a bluep rint for a new IWC which was based on their recently negotiated North Atlantic Fisheries Organization Treaty. In effect, the IWC would only manage species prim arily outside the nation’s exclusive economic zones. Coastal states would manage cetaceans primarily within the ir EEZ’s, seeking only non­ binding scientific advice from the internationa l organization. Canada refused to specify what “primarily” meant and they were unwilling to say by what standard they were going to manage the ir cetaceans. They cited the emerging consensus at Law of the Sea ♦ regarding 200-mile zones as the basis for th eir plan. The following year the U.S. delegation to the Law of the Sea successfully changed article 65 and I have included the current language. * The current language allows or calls for a framework which would include all cetaceans in an international organization; it exempts marine mammals in general from the concept of total utilization, optimum utilization which is the stan dard in Law of the Sea, and it allows coastal states to totally protect marine mammals. That language can in no way be deemed to reflect what Canada is trying to do. This year at the IWC Canada once again showed up with its blueprint, saying tha t they had to have this blueprint of coastal states doing what they please with no regard for minimum conser-

68- 796 0 — 80 -----;» 62 vation standards within their 200 miles because the article 65 still called for it. They managed to stir the coastal states’ rights pot, as it were, and it confused many of the members there because frankly not all of us work on Law of the Sea and not all of us know all the subtleties involved. All they knew was they had to protect the ir 200 mile jurisdiction principle. Canada was able to work everyone up into such a frenzy about this that even the passing mention of small cetaceans—which became the buzz word—resulted in a flurry of statements affirming coastal states’ rights. Typically, Canada did much spade work and was able to bring cetaceans under the purview of the IWC. The United States was caught unprepared to counter the attack, unprepared in the sense we had not done our homework ahead of time. As a result, the question of small cetaceans jurisdiction has been put off for another year, and a weak resolution was adopted in­ stead. The resolution I have attached to my testimony grew out of a compromise between Canada and its attempt to vote small ceta­ ceans out of the IWC once and for all, and a U.S. resolution calling upon Canada to take action to protect belugas and narwhals cur­ rently being heavily harvested by her natives. It is my conclusion that we lost a little chink in our plan to bring small cetaceans, as needed, into the IWC’s jurisdiction. My concern stems from some of the language in the final resolution. For exam­ ple, it recommends that the “Scientific Committee’’ continue to consider the status of small cetaceans—it should read: “the IWC should consider.’’ Canada wants only advice from the Scientific Committee. It also suggests in the preamble that the LOS negotiations are still in question—when new language was adopted this year. I also believe th at the Iki Island question was not raised because Canada so stirred up the coastal States issue that we couldn’t bring it up. I do agree any voting in this regard would have been defeat­ ed and we would have lost future movements to bring the smaller cetaceans into the IWC. The irony of it is that not all small cetaceans are coastal by any means. It is ridiculous to have spent so much time and energy arguing about small cetaceans when we have many tha t are highly migratory and pelagic in nature. I would like to recommend that this committee begin work im­ mediately with the administration to develop a U.S. blue print of its own for cetacean protection. We must begin now to negotiate with the other IWC member nations to develop acceptable language and approaches to bring adequate protection to cetaceans on a world­ wide basis. Otherwise, I firmly believe Canada will continue to chip away at all our advances thus far, and we will end up with an extremely limited international agreement unable to do anything to protect these other small whales. The other subject I wanted to cover was how we arrived at the bowhead decision. By the early seventies, there was no constituen­ cy within the United States which needed a quota from IWC. When a zero bowhead quota was set by IWC in 1977, however, the United States, then a leader to end whaling, had to change its position. 63 At a special meeting in December of 1977, in Tokyo, the United States made a plea for a bowhead quota and jumped into the whalers’ camp by definition, if not by desire. Since then, the U.S. approach to whale protection within the IWC has been colored and confused by a need to obtain a bowhead quota. Our early, more pure leadership waned, and the United States began to look and sound more like Japan than Japan, itself. This year, once again faced with an ultimatum from the Alaskan Natives that they would not abide by a quota lower th an 18 landed and 26 struck, the United States went forward with that number, based on cultural needs. In the face of ever more damaging evi­ dence tha t the bowhead population would decline even with a zero take, the United States did promise to begin a reduction next year. The conservation countries of the IWC were skeptical at best and some downright outraged at the arrogance of the United States on this issue, on one hand asking whaling countries to go out of business when there were hundreds of thousands of those whales, yet we wanted to have continually higher quotas or at least high quotas on the whale stock most endangered. Mr. Bonker. Does the United States stand to lose its credibility if it main tains this position? Ms. Forkan. I think it has lost it. I thin k it started in Tokyo in 1977 that we suddenly became, in my mind, a whaling country in the sense that we had to go back----- Mr. B onker. That is not really fair. There is a distinction be­ tween commercial whaling and aboriginal whaling. Ms. Forkan. There is a distinction but the exercise of getting a quota in the IWC is still there. So we have been forced by this need for a quota to play the game, and the distinction—what we have won by making the distinction was getting any quota at all, be­ cause under normal circumstances we couldn’t even think of get­ ting a quota. But by m aking the distinction between the two types of whaling we then were able to get a quota. I think we have however very much jeopardized our credibility. It is sort of like— we yell and scream —and the first time it affects us, we say wait a minute. So I thin k that the re is a genuine realization within IWC that there is a distinction. Tha t is why we have gotten quotas in the past. I think the hard nosed way we went about getting the quotas and, the unfo rtun ate problem of limited Eskimo cooperation, has forced the United States into a very difficult role. Mr. B onker. Did you pick up any hin t of tradeoffs with the United States, on the one hand, not pursuing vigorously the sperm whaling moratorium and, on the other hand, seeking votes to sus­ tain a quota for bowheads? Ms. F orkan. My feeling is that a tradeoff isn’t even—I do not know of any tradeoffs in the sense that I was sitting there and I heard somebody say I will trad e you this if you give me tha t. But I think that the fact th at we were playing the game put us into a more precarious, a more vulnerable position in the sense th at we had our own quota to cover. Mr. Bonker. You characterize that as playing a game. Maybe it is ju st a ma tter of consistency as perceived by the other countries that we are going to pursue a policy of moratorium in commercial 64 whaling; perhaps we ought to be consistent in applying those same objectives on subsistence. Christine, you raised your hand. Mrs. Stevens. One parenthetical thing: When we complained bitterly to the Canadians about their vote tha t condemned the 1,320 sperm whales, they came back to us and they said, “Well, OK, so we did that, but your Commissioner was the one in the off- the-record Commissioners’ meeting’’—I can only rely on what the Canadians are telling me—“insisted that we had to give them’’— they didn’t give me exact numbers, and obviously, and it is correct that we should not have gone away without a quota. Nevertheless, the Canadians say it was the American Commissioner that really made it possible for J apa n to get that quota, which is obviously too high- Now this is not exactly what you are seeking, not precisely a tradeoff, but it certainly has the feeling of it. And the Canadians use it, when we are putting pressure on them. That is their opinion of where the United States stands. Mr. Bonker. Your comment was that there were several conser­ vation countries tha t were questioning our policy or our position as it relates to bowhead whales. Ms. Forkan. Yes. Mr. Bonker. That is why I pose the question of credibility and consistency. Ms. Forkan. I think the conservation countries thin k that there should be a zero quota on it and that the United States is working so hard to get quotas for bowheads every year that they are ne­ glecting the leadership and neglecting the real action-oriented kinds of approaches that were the re prior to the bowhead issue being on the agenda. I call it a game because in any international negotiation you have personalities; you have other interests that you don’t really know about; you have very late meetings; things happen. One of the points I wanted to make about the bowheads was that it was becoming clear to some of us that we were going to have no quota because the United States had a blocking vote on one side in the sense that they were not going to allow a lower quota to be adopt­ ed. The Australian-New Zealand-Seychelles-Netherlands on the other side, those folks had enough votes to make sure the quota wasn’t too high. There were a couple of votes and we were left with nothing. That means the United States would then have to come back and issue domestic regulations. Some of us felt this would be unacceptable for several reasons. Mr. Bonker. Why would we have to come back and issue domes­ tic regulations? Ms. Forkan. Because the way the schedule was written it only has 18 and 26 for this year. It doesn’t automatically kick in 18 and 26 for next year. So the item you see was headed toward setting no quota at all in tha t case the United States would have to do it domestically. That was an area that a lot of us felt could—when you read the piece about the IWC being on the rocks—that was one of the things tha t was felt to be extremely dangerous because it meant we would have taken away the very strong precedent tha t a quota should be set and no one should go away unregulated, and it 65 smacked of coastal States taking back jurisdiction on the bowheads, which we definitely didn’t want to get into. It also is a very una ttractive idea because we would have had to go through months and months of very protracted hearings here in the United States, between the Eskimo community, NGO’s, and the administration. Our experience has been tha t it is terribly bitter, unproductive and the bowheads have lost out and the Eskimos lost out, in their mind. It is ju st not a productive way to go about it. So we considered all of these possibilities and decided there should be a quota. Commissioner Frank made it very clear that he was very keen on going home with no quota. The Eskimo repre­ sentatives there did not want a quota because they felt they could do better here in the United States. So an NGO initiative began at that time to set up a 3-year block quota. That is where that idea came from. The idea was to set it up for 3 years because it would automatically include a reduction which the United States was saying they would do. The United States said this was going to be a transitional year, but that meant 18 and 26 again. To most people that doesn’t sound very transitional. So the block quota with the numbers plugged into it said, you will, in fact, include that reduc­ tion, because 45 landed, if you take no more than 17 the first year, you end up with a first year, 17; second year, 15; and third year, 13. So you have a built-in reduction. That was appealing to a number of countries. Mr. Bonker. Is that included in the block quota? Ms. Forkan. Yes. No more tha n 17 in any one year. Mr. Bonker. So it is a phasedown? Ms. F orkan. It will in and of itself be a phasedown. In other words, because of weather or other things they only get 13, next year they could go up to 17. Mr. Bonker. It is a carryover. Ms. Forkan. Yes. Mr. B onker. But they can’t exceed more than 17 in any one year. Ms. Forkan. Yes; t ha t was appealing. The other thing which was appealing was we get this off the agenda for a couple of years and it would force the United States, at least it—maybe force is the wrong word—at least it would allow them to come back and once more fight and work solely and singularly for the moratorium. That was one of the appealing things. A number of us worked on it. We let the commissioner know this is what we favored. We sent him a letter to that effect. I asked him pointblank at a meeting would he accept a block quota, or would he just dismiss it out of hand because he wanted to go home with no quota. He said he would not dismiss it out of hand but it would depend on the numbers involved. Negotiations went on among the NGO’s and the different commissioners because there was a growing feel­ ing by the end of the week if we didn’t get a quota, there would be a disaster because the Japanese definitely wanted to go home with no quota on sperm whales. On the other side of that, the Japanese quota, if we had adopted a quota for the bowheads without adopting a quota for the Japa ­ nese in the North Pacific, tha t would have been very bad for our political situation here with the natives. Do you see what I mean? 66 So there was a second reason, I think, tha t the United States might have been interested in a compromise on sperm whales. Mr. Bonker. Is there now a consensus within the environmental community on the block quota? We have met several times prior to the Brighton meeting. There was something of a division within the environmental community on the bowhead issue. Ms. F orkan. I can’t speak for all of the groups. There is one group in particular not represented at the meeting that have been in favor of a zero quota, and they still are. I suspect if they had come back to a domestic hearing, they would have been in for zero. As a matter of fact, most of us would have been for zero, frankly. I have always maintained tha t the Eskimos will do better inte rna­ tionally. Mr. Bonker. So the block quota is something of a compromise? Ms. Forkan. Yes. Mr. V an N ote. If IWC did not set a quota, it would come up under domestic regulation under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, automatically, which requires the hearings and which would probably be more strict. There is no doubt that the bowhead whale is depleted, and under the Marine Mammal Protection Act a de­ pleted species must get strong protection. However, Natives like the Eskimos have an exemption from such restrictions. Ms. Forkan. The burden of proof is not on the Eskimos in those laws—the Eskimos do have special recognition under those laws. The burden of proof would be on the Government to prove the Natives were wrong. The Eskimos are in a better position in those sorts of hearings than, say, the tun a industry has been. Mr. B onker. I s NOAA the lead agency under the Marine Mammal Protection Act? Mr. Van N ote. Yes. Ms. Forkan. In this regard we have neglected the Interior De­ partment and its responsibility to the Natives on this, just as the State Department on the jurisdictional question. I thin k Interior has not really—they defend the Natives down the line, but then there is not very much action to solve this problem. Mr. Bonker. What about their studies? Ms. Forkan. The studies came to nothing. Mr. Bonker. Can you wrap up? Ms. Forkan. Now that we have a 3-year quota, we are hoping we can get back to the business of the moratorium. I would recom­ mend, as I have outlined in the testimony, tha t we desperately need to have weapons technology worked on with the Eskimos. It is a very inhum ane kill. Alternate food sources should be vigorously looked into. I am also concerned that the strike figure of 65 was not ade­ quately handled at IWC. I am not sure there was a limit similar to the no-more-than-17 landed. I am not sure there is a limit of strikes. So theoretically you could have 65 strikes in 1 year. That has to be built into the domestic regulations. I would like to see us moving on the cold harpoon; we totally agree it should be outlawed completely. We would like to see the explosive harpoon also outlawed. The Koreans and Spanish are very reluctant, I am sure, to stop using the cold harpoon. The observer issue is extremely important 67 then to make sure they abide by the cold harpoon plan. Actually Norway still has a quota of Orcas. Again, it seems to me it is not clear whether the cold harpoon ban will apply. I think we ought to explore whether or not they are going to be able to take those killer whales. One thing quickly: Portugal, it is my understanding tha t Por tu­ gal whaling activities include the use of hand-held non-explosive harpoons. This could be construed as diminishing the effectiveness of IWC’s ban on cold harpoons. I think a certification process on the Portugese killing should be looked into. Finally, the observers in the Japanese land stations is extremely important. Some of the other things we need to work on include: vigorous - work on the new management procedures standards, working somehow to get Canada to solve this humpback whale, codfish net entanglement problem. Mr. Bonker. The cod fish----- Ms. Forkan. Codfish net entanglement----- Mr. Bonker. Is that an incidental catch? Ms. Forkan. It would be in that case. The IWC was very anxious to put a zero quota on all humpbacks taken by Greenland natives, which ultimately did not pass. That was for 10 whales. The Canadi­ ans have gill nets and codfish nets; both kinds are causing entan ­ glement. I believe they are killing 40 or more each year. Mr. B onker. Gill nets? Usually they are put across rivers up­ stream or at the mouth. Ms. Forkan. With the capelin fishery collapsing, the humpbacks are following them inland to feed. There are many more whales in general going far along inland coast areas tha n have been there before. It is something they are tryin g to solve, but I think it is again imperative that we need to start working on this with Canada to solve this problem because these are humpbacks that go along our coast as well—there are films available now to show this entanglement—and discuss the problem. Next, IWC needs an infractions scheme where they subtract infractions from next year’s quota, if there are any quotas. The total moratorium, one of the things that my organization has been very concerned with, is that we don’t want to just take a position for a moratorium based solely on the management question. We think it is an ethical question and whales should not be ♦ killed because it is unethical to kill them and that it is a growing concern among many people in the world that man ’s attitude toward wildlife in general should change, that they are n’t just there as a product to be used but tha t they have other purposes; we * can learn from them. There is much lite rature now about the potential for the intelligence of whales and their highly evolved social structures. So our organization has been very strongly in favor of an end to commercial whaling based on ethical reasons. I don’t believe the United States has such a position at this time. And I would like to just call that to your attention. [Ms. Forkan’s prepared statement follows:] 68

P repa red S ta te men t of P atric ia F orkan , V ice P re sid en t for P rogra m and Commun ic at io ns , th e H umane S ociety of th e U nite d S tates

Mr. Chairman, memb ers of the subcommittee, my name is P atricia Forkan. I am Vice President for F rogra m and Commun ica tio ns for the Huma ne Soc iety of the United States, a nonprofit, national org ani zat ion o f 125,000 consti tue nts

dedica ted to the welfa re of animals.

I have bee n per son all y inv olv ed in t he fight for the pre servation of the

earth's mari ne mammals for several years. I have been bo th an obs erver and

a mem ber of the United State s delegatio n to t he International Whaling Commission

at six of the last eight meetings. Since 1977, I have also bee n a memb er of

the United States delegatio n to the Law of th e Sea negotiations.

Since 1973, when I attend ed my first IWC meeting, the pro gre ss made has *

been great. The patt ern has not bee n o ne of rapid change, but rather more of

an evolutionary process. For example, in 197 3 th ere were rep eat ed pro tes ts by

the USSR that the notion of a moratorium should not even be discussed. They

argued that "We are a bod y to regulate whaling. We are not here to regulate

non-whaling." Yet last year, a moratorium was adopted on all take by factory

ships except for minke whales. In 197 1*, there wer e howls of prote st about

even discussing the humane issue. This year, a partial ban on the cold h arpoon

was achieved.

There has been no ove rnight success and the gains achieved h ave been limited

in scope. I do believe, however, that the trend has been a steady one towards

an end to commercial whaling. Over the years, certain pra ctices h ave evol ved at

the IWC. The new role of science is p art icu lar ly important. Until 197 1*, quotas

always ref lected the needs of the w haling industry, not the recommendati ons made

4 69

by th e scientists. However, when th e U.S. began to con sider unilate ral action

through the Pelly amendmen t, and later, the Pac kwood-Magnuson amendment, ther e

was a gradual shift towards follow ing the scientific rec omm end ations wh en

set ting quotas. No n ati on had chosen t o tak e an objection to any quo ta set

since 1973. Last year, Spai n b rok e that practice when it obj ected to its

fin w hal e quota. The delegation, howeve r, withdrew its objec tio n when the

commissio n met this past July and raised the quota.

Unfortunately, the clea r leade rsh ip taken by the U.S. sinc e t he 1972

decis ion to wor k for a te n ye ar moratorium wa s weakened and the orig ina l goal

undermi ned when the bowhe ad questi on first sur fac ed in 1977. Prior to this,

any pr ogress m ade at the IWC wa s a result of a com bination of efforts. Former

U.S. commissio ner to t he IWC Robe rt White attri but ed th e early successes to the

then unique and strong con ser vat ion commu nit y stan d in favo r of a moratorium.

Early media and p ublic edu cation events by NGO's helped bring the m essag e to

other IWC countries. By 197^ the moratorium vote seemed so a ssu red that the

whaling countries agreed to a com pro mis e p ut forwar d by Aus tralia cal led th e

New Manage men t Procedure. The measure set up strong er sta ndards for the IWC

scientific com mittee to follow when recomme ndi ng quotas. This New Manag eme nt

Pro cedure ha s formed the basi s for reduced quota rec omm end ati ons in every yea r since its adoption.

Follow ing th e incept ion of the New Manag eme nt Pol icy, the total m oratorium

fight too k a ba ck seat. Subsequent yea rs hav e res ult ed in a downwa rd trend

for quotas as part of the long fight inv olved in e ndi ng comm ercial whaling.

There has bee n no singularly successful year— per hap s 1979, with th e approval of a partial mor atorium on factory ships and the des ignation of the Indian

Ocean as a sanctuary, comes closest.

The 1980 IWC meet ing opened with more of the member n ations commit ted to a total morato riu m t han ever befo re, and a scientific com mit tee r eport ope nin g

68-796 0 — 80--- 6 70

the possibility of a sperm whal e morator ium ba sed on science rather than public opinion. The h ard realities of economic s, jobs, and the general difficulties of internati ona l negotiations soon t ook over. Wha le conservat ion groups' hopes for a big w in on a total mor ato rium were quickly dashed, and we wer e forced to dig in to a type of t rench warfa re, saving whales b y the tens and twenties instead of b y the thousands we had anticipated.

1980 seemed to be an unusually difficult ye ar. Perhaps it was caused by the presence of a strong pro -whaling bloc. Or, it could be that the fight got tougher as we drew n earer t he point at wh ich commer cia l whaling is no longer economically viable. It is becomi ng more desper ate on each side, wit h one fearing total loss of jobs and money, the other, the loss of a marvelous species.

The present IWC schedule calls for a phasing out of w haling by Brazil (next year),

Peru, and Chile by 1982. The likelihood of i sol ati ng the rem aining whaling nations and pass ing a total mo rat ori um in 1982 seems to be our b est bet. Next yea r will probably involve more "trench warfa re. " Esp eci all y with the additi on of so many new whal ing nations creating a formidabl e v oti ng bloc.

INTERNATIONAL CET ACE AN COMM ISSION

What will the IWC loo k like whe n we do a chi eve a total moratorium? This

question has been of great concern to man y of us who would like to see an

international mec hanism remain to protect and stud y all cetaceans. Whe n the

Mar ine Mammal Protection Act was passed in 1972, one o f its directives was

to require the renegotia tio n of relevant treaties to reflect its standards.

Thus, the U.S. , as part of its strategy in the mid-1970s , beg an to pus h for

a re- negotiation of the IWC convention to make it an International Cetacean

Commission.

Concurrently, the Law of the Sea negotiations wer e proceedin g along lines

which the w hal e conser vat ion community deemed unacceptable. Specifically,

r 71

there was concern that A rticle 65 langua ge all owe d coa stal states to mana ge

cetaceans with a lesser sta nda rd than the New Ma nag eme nt Pro ced ure agreed upon

by the IWC.

Our fears regard ing t hat language wer e confirmed at a 1978 prepar ato ry mee ting in Cope nha gen for a new intern ati ona l con ven tion on whaling. Canada pre sented a "blueprint" for a n ew IWC w hich was based on thei r recently negotiated North Atlanti c Fisher ies Organiz ati on treaty. In effect, the IWC would only manag e species primarily out sid e the var ious na ti on s’ exclusive

economic zones. Coastal states would mana ge cetace ans prim arily with in

their EEZ, seeking o nly no n-binding scientific adv ice from the int ernational organization. Can ada refused to specify w hat "primarily" meant in pe rcenta ges and was unwilling to say b y what sta nda rd the coa stal state would mana ge its cetaceans. They cited th e "em erging consensus" at LOS regar din g t he 200 mile

zones as the basis for proposing their plan.

The follow ing year, th e U.S. delegatio n to th e LOS successfu lly changed the wordin g of Art icle 65 and toda y it reads as follows:

Articl e 65 Marine M ammals

Not hing in this part restri cts the righ t of a coa stal state or the competence of an internati ona l org anization, as appropriate, to prohibit, limit, or reg ula te the exp loi tat ion of marine mammals m ore strictly t ha n provided for in this pa rt. States shall cooperate with a view to the con ser vat ion of mari ne mammal s and in the case of cetaceans shall in p artic ula r w ork thro ugh the appropriate int ernational organizat ion s for their con servation, management, and study.

This Article est ablishes a soun d framework for the protec tio n of whales

and other marine mam mals w it h critical emphas is on int ernational cooperation.

It exempts marine mammals fro m the opt imum util ization requireme nts of o the r provisions of th e ICNT Rev. 2 and p ermits states and com petent int ernational organizations to establ ish more stringent con servation regulations than other wis e mandated by the ICN T Rev. 2. It expl icitly pe rmi ts states and int ernational 72

organizations to prohib it the taking o f mar ine mammals.

It is furthe r understood that this language, in con junction wi th other

parts of the draft treaty text, mea ns that in the cas e o f direct tak e of

cetaceans, the appropr iat e org anizations referred to in Arti cle 65 are the

International Whaling Comm ission or its succes sor organiza tio n, and that its

min imum pr otect ion standards for cetaceans apply throu gho ut the ir rang e with in

and beyond the exc lusive economic zones. It is als o u nde rstood tha t cetaceans

appear on the annex list ing highly mi gra tory spe cies associate d with Article

6H because they a re occasionall y involved as incidental catch wi th other '•

highly migratory species that appear on the ann ex and may in such cases b e

subject to t he com pet enc e o f regional organiza tions. tke Obviously, the rev ised Ar tic le can no l ong er be interpreted as an

emerging consensus mandat ing support of the Canadi an position. However, during

this year's IWC meeting, Canada, in my opinion, tried to offset the U.S.

gains at LOS by p ushing its "blue pri nt” once more,

By the o penin g session, Canada h ad mana ged , via the small cetacean

jurisdiction question, to stir the coastal st at es ’ rights pot to create

turmoil and confus ion to such an extent that even the passin g me ntion of

small cetaceans brough t a flurry o f statements re- affirming each coastal

state's position regar din g 200 mil e zones.

Typically, Can ada had done muc h spade work and wa s able to frustrate

any attempt to b ri ng small cetaceans under the purview of the IWC. The U.S,

was once again caug ht unprep are d to counter the attack. As a result, the question

of small cetaceans jurisdiction has been put off for ano the r year, and a

weak resolution was ado pted instead. The reso lut ion (appendix A) gre w out of

a compromise between a Canadian attempt t o vo te small cetaceans out of the IWC

once and for all, and a U.S. resolution calling u pon Canad a to take action to

protect belugas and narwh als currently bein g heav ily harve ste d by he r natives. * 73

It is my conclusion that we lost a little chink in our plan to bring

small cetaceans, as needed, into the IWC's Jurisdiction, My concern stems from

some of the language in the final resolution. For example, it recommends that

the "Scientific Committee" continue to consider the status of small cetaceans_

it shew Id read; 'the "IWC" should consider'. It also suggests in the preamble

that the LOS negotiations are still in question— when new language was

adopted this year.

I also believe that the Iki Island question was not raised because Canada

had so inflamed the situation that any vote to do something in that regard

would have gone up in smoke, with most countries voting as if it were a

• 200 mile jurisdictional question rather than a biological one.

I would like to recommend that this committee begin work immediately

with the Administration to develop a U.S, "blueprint" of its own for

cetacean protection. We must begin now to negotiate with the other IWC

member nations to develop acceptable language and approaches to bring adequate

protection to cetaceans on a world-wide basis. Otherwise, Canada will continue

to chip away at all our advances thus far and we will end up with an extremely

limited international agreement.

BOWHEADS

Another topic of great concern to those of us involved in saving whales

is the U.S. aboriginal hunt of bowheads. By the early seventies, there was

no consitutuency within the U.S. which needed a quota from IWC. When a zero

bowhead quota was set by IWC in 1977, however, the U.S.' position as a leader

in the fight to end whaling also ended.

At a special meeting in December, 1977, in Tokyo, the U.S. made a plea

for a bowhead quota and Jumped into the whalers' camp by definition if not

by desire. Since then, the U.S. approach to whale protection within the IWC

has been colored and confused by a need to obtain a bowhead quota. Our early, 74

more pure leadership waned, and the U.S. began to look and sound more like

Japan than itself. This year, once again faced with an ultimatum from the Alaskan natives

that they would not abide by a quota lower than l8 landed and 26 struck,

the U.S. went forward with that number, based on cultural needs. In the

face of ever more damaging evidence that the bowhead population would decline

even with a ZERO take, the U.S. did promise to begin a reduction next year.

The conservation countries of the IWC were skeptical at best and some

downright outraged at the arrogance of the U.S. on this issue. How can we

demand that the other nations phase out whaling when there are tens and even

hundreds of thousands of whales in the stocks they are taking while the U.S. *

continues to ask for quotas on a whale stock that is the most endangered in

the world? There exists among IWC member nations a genuine realization that aboriginal

take should be treated as a special case, which is why quotas have been allowed

at all. There is also a concern that Eskimo cooperation is essential to any

conservation attempt. Thus, a delicate balance has been reached by stretching

to allow as few bowheads as possible, while still giving enough to maintain

Eskimo cooperation. This year, the U.S. had a bloc to prevent too low a quota from being

set, and the conservation members had a bloc to prevent too high a quota. Thus,

a standoff emerged at the beginning of the meeting portending the real

possibility of the commission not being able to agree upon any quota. The U.S.

announced that if no quota were adopted, domestic regulation would be implemented

at the 18 and 26 level.

The NGO's decided that no quota agreement was unacceptable for three

reasons. First, it set a bad precedent for the IWC and would encourage *

Japan and other whaling nations to try for no quotas on other species as well. 15

Second, it meant a long and poss ibl y b itt er figh t in the U.S. bet wee n the

natives and most of th e conservat ion community, who believe that a zero

quota is the only choice. Finally, it smack ed of a coas tal state takin g

jurisdict ion back on a coa stal stoc k (. a move the U.S, par ticularly w anted

to avoid making in light of the ong oing jur isd ict ional dispute). U.S.

commissioner D ick Fra nk seemed to support goi ng hom e with no quota. The

Eskimos supported no quota as w ell— they hav e always beli eved it sho uld be

set domestically, and not by IWC.

In hopes of rea chi ng a compromise, the NGO 's took the initiative and

privat ely prop ose d t he idea of a tw o or thr ee year bl ock quo ta w ith a cei ling

on the number struck a nd landed. We a ppr oached several commissio ner s who

wer e con cerned about t he p otent ial ly dam agi ng effe cts on the IWC of havin g

no set quota. The ywe re deter min ed to reach some compromise. Other commissio ner s

were intrigued with the pros pect of getti ng the bo whead que sti on off th e

agenda for a few years. They hoped that t he U,S. could then resume its

former leaders hip role, onc e r id of its app arently contradic tor y positions.

The U.S. NGO's sent a note to Dic k Frank indi cating our con cern for

gettin g a quota a nd sug ges ting a block q uota as a compromise. The only

response we got fro m him was at a delega tio n meeting wh en he was asked point blank— will you dis miss a block quo ta out of hand. He said no, he would not, but that it depend ed on the numbers included.

Dis cussions amo ng the NGO’s and other commi ssi one rs con tinued for a few days and several num bers w ere prop osed, ran gin g fro m 39 to 1(5 lan ded or 6l struck an d lost. By Thursda y evening, the commissio ner s met in a closed session and agreed on several quotas— bowhea ds among them. Commissio ner

Frank seemed ama zed tha t he was able to get 65 struck and 1(5 landed o ver a three year period with no more than sevent een landed in any one year. I firmly believe that the compromise was rea ched t hanks to the efforts of the NGO' s 76

and several other commis sio ner s who wer e unwilling to be party to the begin nin g of the end of the IWC.

The U.S. still must propo se domestic reg ula tio ns to enfo rce the thr ee year

quota, and as part of t hese regulat ion s, a "strike" figure must be set

for each year. This fell through the crack s at the meetin g, theor eti cal ly

mak ing it possible to make all 65 str ikes in the first year.

No w that a three-y ear quota has b een set, it is i mperat ive that the

Administr ati on continue to work with th e Eskimo community on bow hea d populat ion

data (especially on net rec rui tme nt fig ures), imp rov ed weap ons tec hnology,

and alt ernate food sources. We ha ve b ee n assured by the Eskimo peop le

that they w ill not allow the bowhead wh ale to bec ome extinct. Hopefully,

this three year hiatus will be time eno ugh to resol ve this problem for all

concerned.

HUMANE KILLING

The HSUS is not alon e in believing th at all present me tho ds of w haling

are inhumane and for n o o the r reason, whaling should be halted. The cold

harpoo n is particular ly indefensible; cau sing prolo nged suf fering unti l the

wounded animal is haul ed back to the catc her boa t to be shot.

The partial ban on t he use of the col d harpoon was a significant

vic tor y at this ye ar's IWC meeting. It m ust no w be v igoro usl y enforc ed to

make it meaningful. Next year, the U.S. should ta ke the lead in g ett ing a

total ban on its use. In addition, we ough t to begin right now to nego tiate

a simila r phase-out of t he explosi ve harpoon.

Of partic ula r imm ediate con cer n is the n eed to expand the observ er

coverage, especially in K orea and Spain, where none pre sently exists. This

is c ritical not only to check on numbers, species, and size of animals taken,

but also to ensure compli anc e w ith the cold h arp oon ban. Bot h countries « have traditiona lly used c old ha rpoons for w hales other tha n the minke.

9 If the U.S. government is truly committed to humane killing— if, indeed, there is to he any killing at all— then there should he an immediate invest­ igation into Portugese whaling activities. It is my understanding that they use hand-held, non-explosive harpoons, resulting in prolonged suffering for the whales. Since they appear to be "diminishing the effectiveness" of the

TWC regarding humane taking, the Administration ought to begin the certification process under the Pelly amendment immediately.

Additional aspects of the international observer program need attention.

The practice of whaling nations exchanging observers is less than satisfactory.

The TWC ought to have a corps of truly international observers who can be moved to different assignments as needed. In the meantime, the U.S. should increase its coverage of the Japanese land stations. The IWC infractions committee found that not all landings are inspected and that minke whale operations aren't even covered. Obviously, this is something that can be done by the U.S. right away.

CONCLUSION

As requested by this committee, I have covered just a few areas of concern about the IWC. There are many others which need sorting out over the next few months in preparation for next year's meeting. Some of those include: active participation in strengthening the New Mangement Procedure standards; working with Canada to solve the problem of Humpback whales becoming entangled in fishing nets (There was a majority vote this year to end the Greenland take of ten animals from this stock— while Canadian nets are causing the death of HO or more annually); developing a scheme whereby .infractions would be subtracted from next year's quotas; continuing pressure to end Taiwan's whaling efforts; and, of course, another push for a total moratorium on commercial whaling.

As we look toward next year's meeting, I must ask what the U.S. government's 78

policy really is regard ing whaling. Australia has taken a firm stand and its pol icy is clear as a bell— they want to put an end to commercial w haling bec aus e it is ethica lly wrong. The U.S. position is murky at best , cal ling for a mora torium for an indefinite t ime period. HSU S me mbers want the ir govern­ ment to be a leader to end whal ing— now. We w ill contin ue to call upon the

Administr ati on to adopt a strong policy advocating an immediate end to whaling on the grounds that it is un eth ica l to kill whales, and to increase its efforts to mak e that p olicy b ecome a realit y— to end comm erc ial whal ing once and for a ll . *

*

< 79

Joint C anada/USA Resolution R E S O L U T I O N

AGENDA ITEM 15.3. EXTENSION OF THE COMMISSION S RESPONSIBILITY FOR SMALL CETACEANS

WHEREAS, the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, 1946, specifies a decision by Parties to "conclude a convention to provide for the proper conser­ vation of whale stocks and thus make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry"; * WHEREAS, the Convention itself does not define the species covered by the term whale and Contracting Governments are not of one view on such a definition as regards the Convention;

» WHEREAS, the Final Act of the international Whaling Conference, 1946, recommended that governments accept a chart of nomenclature of whales which included, in toto, the baleen sperm and bottlenose whales? / - » ' WHEREAS, this year the Scientific Committee has examined the condition of various beluga and narwhal stocks and has recommended on biological grounds that one stock be classified as a Protection Stock; . . WHEREAS, the rights and responsibilities of the Gontraot-ing Governments with respect to the conservation, management and study of cetaceans are matters under the consideration of the U.N. Conference on the Law of the Sea;

WHEREAS, the Contracting Governments and other interested parties have been and continue to consider the question of possible amendments to or renegotiation of the present Convention reflecting consideration of, inter a li a, the developments in - the Law of the Sea. ■ .. < ' •• . ’ '-r.- . ■ ■ * . •• - ■.*^7. WHEREAS, the Scientific Committee of the International Whaling ' ' Commission has a standing subcommittee on Small Cetaceans and • r biilogical expertise in this field; „ V * V NOW, THEREFORE, the Commission, without prejudice to positions of Contracting Governments with respect to nature and extent — . of coastal state jurisdiction; i » RECOMMENDS that the Scientific Committee, in part through the subcommittee on Small Cetaceans, continue to consider the status of cetaceans and provide such scientific advice as may be warranted to Contracting governments; coastal states and other interested governments and interested inter- ' governmental organsations as appropriate. , . >_ • __ V_ .'

REQUESTS Governments to continue submitting reports to the - Scientific Committee concerning the status of, inter alia beluga and narwhal stocks and any management measures taken with respect thereto. 80

Mr. Bonker. Thank you. Well, the three of you have brought to the subcommittee not only keen insights as to what happened at the Brighton meeting, but many recommendations and proposals. The question or chal­ lenge before this subcommittee, and perhaps before the adm inistra­ tion, is how we move toward the next meeting in view of the many problems and proposals tha t you have laid out this afternoon. I feel a little overwhelmed with the new dimensions to this issue. It seems to me that we still lack a whale conservation policy. Now we have to deal with this problem of 200-mile jurisdiction and how we approach that with coastal states’ jurisdictions; the need for inde­ pendent observers; and the continuing problem of distinguishing between Native subsistence whaling versus commercial whaling. I don’t know how we deal with all these things in a comprehensive way. Yet we are not doing very well piecemeal. On the problem of leadership, I have looked through the various statements, and I see references to United States desertion of its leadership, abandonment of leadership, decline of leadership—all of which says something about our effectiveness in past years versus our ineffectiveness in the present Whaling Commission meetings. I don’t know whether this is an indictment of th e delegation or the lack of Presidential leadership or U.S. policy. But obviously this charge is coming from many quarters, and there must be some validity to it. So I don’t know how we approach something as intangible as leadership, but I think it is something this subcom­ mittee ought to look at very closely and try to communicate with the President. If his commitment is clear and forceful, then it ought to be fulfilled at the IWC meetings. There are some things the subcommittee can work on. I think letters to the President, to follow Christin e’s recommendation on having independent observers. I don’t know how we approach this problem tha t Canada has raised in terms of coastal states and what jurisdiction or responsibility they have for whales within the 200- mile limit. I do know as it relates to Canada that they have been rather independent, and I think unresponsive on policies as they relate to the ir own waters. This is a new concept for many coastal states. They have not really developed policies within 200-mile zones. So this is going to be a test area, I think, for many states in the future. Canada may well take the lead in this area. That could prove disastrous for future IWC sessions unless there is balance to it, which the United States could help fulfill. But lacking a policy for our own inland waters, our own coastal zones, I am not sure we can provide tha t leadership. We will need time to digest what you have put before the com­ mittee and, if the staff time would allow, I would like to have us work with you to develop a more comprehensive approach. For instance, we do need a conservation policy, but we will have to look to you for some help in developing that policy and perhaps it can come in the form of legislation. We also would like to have our staff identify the proposals and recommendations you have made. Then, I would like to submit them to Mr. Frank for his response so we can get the adm inistra­ tion ’s thinking on many of these proposals. If I am chairman of 81 this subcommittee in 1981, I don’t want to proceed as we have in the past. That is, always to review IWC actions and the U.S. role with respect to those actions. I think there is considerable interest now among Members of Congress that we want to take a strong­ er—we want to play a greater role in the development of th e U.S. position and to have some accountability on U.S. participation in future IWC meetings, because I thin k our policy and the Presi­ den t’s policy are p retty clear and forceful as they relate to commer­ cial whaling. We have to develop a policy in relation to aboriginal and subsist­ ence whaling, and to this other problem of the 200-mile zones and how they now come into play in IWC management schemes. So there is a lot of work to do. I thin k we ought to proceed very quickly in order to develop and refine policies and a U.S. position before we go into the next IWC meeting, which is at Brighton again. Any particular reason why? Ms. Forkan. It is cheaper. Mr. Bonker. And th e dates, are they established? Mr. Van N ote. J uly 20. Mr. Bonker. Does Congressman McCloskey have a staff assistant here? Congressman AuCoin does. I think we will involve our mem­ bers’ staffers as well as the subcommittee, perhaps, in working with you, so that we can develop a more comprehensive approach to this subject. I do have questions, but at least for me the time is runn ing out. We have been going now for 2 ¥2 hours. I th ink at this time I will withhold the questions and perhaps submit some in written form to each of the witnesses who are here. We will also hold the record open for additional documents you may want to submit. The subcommittee will stand adjourned. [Whereupon, at 4:42 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned, to recon­ vene at the call of the Chair.]

APPEN DIX 1

Text of Letter Dated S eptember 12, 1980, to H on . R ichard A. F ran k , F rom S ubcommittee C hairm an B onker R equesting A d­ ditional I nfo rmation for the R ecord

September 12, 1980. * Hon. Richard A. Frank, Administrator, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C. Dear Dick: Thank you very much for your appearance and excellent testimony on t the 32d IWC before the subcommittee on September 10. Unfortunately, time did not ’ permit us to discuss with you a number of issues. I would, therefore, like to request tha t you submit a brief written response to several additional questions: 1. In testimony before the subcommittee on May 20, 1980 the State Depart­ ment representative said “we expect to begin bilateral discussions with IWC member countries early next month * * * we have asked U.S. missions to raise this (the commercial moratorium) matter at senior levels of host governments.” Please list the dates of these discussions and at what levels they took place. 2. In testimony before the subcommittee on May 20, 1980 you stated tha t “I will continue to remind the member nations of the provisions of the Packwood- Magnuson and Pelly amendments and of my intent to take forceful action whenever it is appropriate.” How many times and with which countries did you or other representatives raise these amendments in discussions with other IWC member countries prior to the IWC? How many times and with which Commissioners did you personally discuss these amendments formally and informally at the IWC? 3. When Plenary failed to adopt a moratorium on commercial whaling a proposal of one of the “lesser” moratoria (such as a moratorium on commercial whaling in the North Atlantic) would have been in order. Why didn’t the United States or one of the other conservationist countries propose one of the “lesser” moratoria? 4. What specific actions will the United States take during the coming year to seek the adoption of a ban on the use of the cold harpoon for minke whales at the 33d IWC? 5. What specific actions will the United States take during the coming year to seek the extension of the 33d IWC of the IWC’s jurisdiction to include the regulation of small cetaceans? In order to facilitate the publication of the hearing, I would hope to receive your response to these questions by October 3, 1980. > Sincerely yours, Don Bonker, Chairman, Subcommittee on International Organizations. (83) f A PPE N D IX 2

Response of H on . R ich ard A. F ra nk to S ub comm itt ee Cha irman B on ke r ’s L etter of S eptemb er 12, 1980

UNITED STATES DEPAR TMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atm osp heric Administration W as hing ton, D.C. 202 30

THE ADMINISTRATO R

October 15, 1980

Honorable Don Bonker Chairman, Subcommittee on International Organizations Committee on Foreign Affairs House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Don, Thank you for your letter of September 12, 1980, transmitting several questions that were not raised before the Subcommittee on International Organizations on September 10, 1980. I am pleased to respond, as set forth below.

1. Question; In testimony before the Subcommittee on May 20, 1980, the State Department representative said, "we expect to begin bilateral discussions with IWC member countries early next month . . . we have asked U.S. missions to raise this (the commercial moratorium) matter at senior levels of host governments." Please list the dates of these discussions and at what levels they took place.

Response; Bilateral discussions began in March and continued through May. During this period, I talked with the Commissioners or officials of higher rank from Spain, Japan, Iceland, Korea, Australia and the Seychelles. I also wrote to the Soviet Minister of Fish Industries. These discussions were continued by the State Department and my staff as Mr. Brown stated in his testimony. The following bilateral communications were held after May 20;

Argentina; Dr. William Aron, Director, Office of Marine Mammals and Endangered Species, NOAA, and Claudia Kendrew, Office of Ocean and Polar Affairs, Department of State, met in London with the Argentine IWC Commissioner on June 11, 1980. Senior officials at the U.S. Embassy in London met with the Commissioner on July 10, 1980.

Australia: Senior officials at the U.S. Embassy in Canberra, Australia met with the Australian Commissioner to the IWC on July 8, 1980.

10TH ANNIVERSARY 1970-1 980 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration A young agency with a his toric tra ditio n of service to the Nation 85

Brazil; Aron and Kendrew met in London with the Brazilian IWC Commissioner on June 11, 1980. Senior officials at the U.S. Embassy in Brasilia met with the Director of the Brazilian Foreign Ministry, Division of International Organizations on July 10, 1980, and senior officials at the U.S. Embassy in London met with the Brazilian IWC Commissioner in London on July 16, 1980.

Canada ; Senior officials at the U.S. Embassy in Ottawa met with the Director of the Canadian Department of External Affairs, Legal Operations Division, on July 10, 1980.

Denmar k: Aron and Kendrew met in Copenhagen, Denmark with the Danish IWC Commissioner on June 6, 1980. Senior officials at the U.S. Embassy in Copenhagen, Denmark met with the Director of the Danish Fisheries Ministry on July 14, 1980.

France; Senior officials at the U.S. Embassy in Paris, France met with the Director of the Economic Section of the French Foreign Ministry on July 11, 1980.

Japan; The Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans, International Environmental and Scientific Affairs corresponded with the Minister of the Japanese Embassy in Washington, D.C. on July 10, 1980.

Mexico; Aron and Kendrew met in London with the former IWC Commissioner on June 10, 1980. At that time the Mexican Commissioner for 1980 was not designated. Senior officials at the U.S. Embassy in Mexico City met with the Director General for International Conferences, Mexican Secretariat for Foreign Relations on July 9 and 16, 1980.

Netherlands; Aron and Kendrew met in The Hague Netherlands with the Dutch IWC Commissioner on June 7, 1980. Senior officials at the U.S. Embassy in The Hague, Netherlands, met with the Commissioner on July 10, 1980.

68-796 0 —80-----7 86

New Z e a la n d : Aro n an d Ken dr ew m et in Lo nd on w it h th e New Z eala n d r e p r e s e n t a t i v e to th e IWC on Ju n e 1 2 , 1980. S e n io r o f f i c i a l s a t th e U .S . Emba ss y in W e llin g to n , New Z eala n d m et w ith th e IWC C om m is sio ner on J u ly 9 , 1980.

Nor w ay : S e n io r o f f i c i a l s a t th e U .S . Emba ssy in A th e n s, G re e c e , m et w ith th e N orw egia n IWC C om m is sio ner on J u ly 1 0 , 1980.

P e r u : A ro n an d Ken dr ew m et in Lon do n w ith o f f i c i a l s a t th e P e ru v ia n Em ba ssy on Ju n e 12, 1980. S e n io r o f f i c i a l s a t th e U .S . Emba ssy in Lo nd on m et w ith th e P e ru v ia n IWC C om m is sio ner on J u ly 10 , 1 1 , and 16 , 1 980. >

R e p u b li c o f K o re a : Aro n an d Ken dr ew m et in Lon do n w it h th e K ore an IWC C om m is sio ner on Ju n e 12, 1980. S e n io r o f f i c i a l s a t th e U .S . Em ba ssy in S e o u l, m et w ith th e A s s i s t a n t I Minister for Economic Affairs, and the Director for Inter­ national Legal Affairs on July 9, 1980.

S e y c h e lle s : S e n io r o f f i c i a l s a t th e U .S . Em ba ssy in Victoria, Seychelles, met with the Minister for Foreign A f f a ir s an d th e S e c r e ta r y f o r A g r ic u ltu r e on J u ly 1 0 , 1980. S e n io r o f f i c i a l s a ls o m et in Lon do n w ith th e IWC C om m is si oner on J u ly 1 1 , 1980. Aro n an d Ken dr ew m et in Lon do n w ith th e IWC C om m is sio ner on Ju n e 10, 1 980.

South Africa: Senior officials at the U.S. Emba ssy in Ca pe Town, S o u th A f r i c a , m et w it h th e S o u th A f r ic a n IWC C om m is sio ner on J u ly 1 0 , 1980. S e n io r o f f i c i a l s at the U.S. consulate in Pretoria met with the South African Under Secretary for International Organizations on July 10, 1980.

S p a in : S e n io r o f f i c i a l s a t th e U .S . Emba ssy in Madrid, Spain, met with the Director of the Subsecretariat o f F i s h e r i e s an d M erc h an t M ari n e on J u ly 9 , 1980.

Sw ed en : Aro n m et in S to ckholm w ith th e S w edis h IWC C om m is sio ner on Ju n e 5 , 1 9 8 0 .

S w itz e r la n d : Ar on and Ken dr ew m et in B e rn e , I Switzerland with the Chief of the Section for Protection of A nim als an d S p e c ie s on Ju n e 9 , 1980. United Kingdo m; Aron and Kendrew met in London with the British IWC Commissioner and with the Assistant Secretary for Fisheries of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on June 10, 1980. Senior officials of the U.S. Embassy in London met with the British Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner on July 11, 1980.

USSR: Senior officials at the U.S. Embassy in the U.S.S.R. met with a member of the Commercial Fisheries Board, and two staffers in the Foreign Relations Department of the Soviet Fisheries Ministry on July 11, 1980.

2. Question: In testimony before the Subcommittee on May 20, 1980, you stated that, "I will continue to remind the member nations of the provisions of the Packwood-Magnuson and Pelly Amendments and of my intent to take forceful action whenever it is appropriate." How many times and with which countries did you or other representatives raise these Amendments in discussions with other IWC member countries prior to the IWC?

Response: We have taken steps in the past to insure that other IWC member countries are generally aware of our statutory responsibilities under these Amendments. During discussions on IWC issues before and during the Annual Meeting, I reminded member countries of the amendments when the question of objection to or compliance with quotas or other conservation measures were discussed.

This past year we have been particularly concerned with activities of Spain and Taiwan. In November of 1979, Spain objected to the quota established for the Spain-Portugal British Isles stock of fin whales established by the IWC at its 31st Annual Meeting in June, 1979. The U.S. immediately began discussions with the Government of Spain to seek compliance with the IWC quota, reminding Spain of the possibility of certification if it did not comply with the quota. As a result of these discussions, Spain stated in writing its intention not to exceed the quota, and to request reconsideration of the quota at the July, 1980 IWC meeting.

Extensive discussions were also conducted throughout this year with Taiwanese officials. The possibility of c e r t i f i c a t i o n ha s be en b ro u g h t t o t h e ir a t t e n t io n on nu mer ou s o c c a s io n s . L a s t Ju ne we re c e iv e d s u f f i c i e n t c o n fir m a tio n o f th e n a tu re o f T a iw a n 's w h a lin g a c t i v i t i e s t o d e te rm in e th e a p p l i c a b i l i t y o f th e Pa ck woo d- Mag nu so n and P e lly Amen dm en ts. In re s p o n s e to U .S . p re s s u re t o ce ase w h a li n g , Taiw an a tt e m p te d u n s u c c e s s fu ll y to j o i n th e IWC and s in c e th e n ha s be en e xa m in in g o th e r mea ns o f r e s o lv in g th e is s u e . A t t h i s p o in t , a l l T aiw anese w h a lin g a c t i v i t i e s hav e te m p o r a r il y ce a se d. D is c u s s io n s be tw een th e U n it e d S ta te s and T aiw an are s till in progress, but if there is no permanent resolution o f th e Taiw an w h a li n g p ro b le m , I w i l l ta k e a p p r o p r ia te s te p s un d er th e Am en dm en ts.

Q u e s tio n ; How many ti m e s and w it h w h ic h Comm is­ s io n e rs d id yo u p e r s o n a ll y d is c u s s th e s e Am endm ents f o r m a ll y and in f o r m a lly a t th e IWC?

Resp onse : I p e r s o n a ll y d is c u s s e d th e a p p l i c a b i l i t y o f th e s e Am endments l a s t s p rin g w it h th e S p a n is h and Ja pane se C o m m is sio n e rs . H ow ever, as a r e s u lt o f th e w it h d ra w a l o f th e S p a n is h o b je c t io n to th e f i n w h a le q u o ta and th e su b­ se q u e n t IWC a c tio n s e t t in g a q u o ta a c c e p ta b le to S p a in f o r 1980 and 198 1, and as a r e s u lt o f Ja pane se e f f o r t s to end th e flo w o f no n-mem be r w h a le p ro d u c ts in t o Ja p a n, f u r t h e r d is c u s s io n s o f th e Pa ck woo d- M ag nu so n and P e ll y Am endm ents w it h th e s e C om m is sio ners a t th e J u ly IWC m e e tin g w ere u n n e c e s s a ry . I ha ve p e r s o n a ll y m en tio n e d th e s e Am endm ents t o s e v e ra l o th e r C om m is sio ners on s e v e ra l o c c a s io n s . I c a n n o t now r e c a ll th e s p e c if ic ti m e s and p la c e s o f th e s e d is c u s s io n s .

3. Q u e s tio n ; When P le n a ry f a ile d t o a d o p t a m o ra to ri u m on co m m e rc ia l w h a li n g , a p ro p o s a l f o r on e o f th e " le s s e r " m o r a to ria (s uch as a m o ra to ri u m on co m m e rc ia l w h a li n g in th e N o rth A t la n t ic ) w o u ld ha ve be en in o r d e r . Why d i d n 't th e U n it e d S ta te s o r on e o f th e o th e r c o n s e r v a t io n is t c o u n tr ie s p ro p o s e on e o f th e " le s s e r " m o ra to ria ?

Resp onse ; L e s s e r m o r a to ria w ere pro posed by th e U n it e d S ta te s and o th e r s . A f t e r th e im m edia te m o ra to ri u m on c o m m e rc ia l w h a li n g f a ile d t o p a s s , th re e o th e r m o r a to ria w ere p ro p o s e d : a m o ra to ri u m on co m m e rc ia l w h a li n g d e la y e d on e y e a r; an im m edia te m o ra to ri u m on sp erm w h a li n g ; and a 89

moratorium on sperm whaling delayed one year. Although the United States supported each of these measures in turn, none received the support necessary for adoption. In this situation, my instructions directed me to support sanctuary or moratorium proposals made by other nations consistent with other elements of the U.S. position or, finally, to defer to other agenda items to correct the failings of the existing IWC conservation program. The composition of the four moratorium votes that were taken indicated that the whaling countries had the votes to block any further "lesser moratoria" measures. In such circumstances, rather than suffer repeated losses on moratoria proposals, the more productive course of action was to seek lower quotas on a stock-by-stock basis.

4. Que stion: What specific actions will the U.S. take during the coming year to seek the adoption of a ban on the use of the cold harpoon for minke whales at the 33rd IWC Meeting?

Response: I anticipate, pending the advice of the IWC Interagency Committee, that the United States will make every effort to promote the complete prohibition on the use of the cold harpoon next year. This will involve prenegotia­ tion discussions with other countries. In addition, we will carefully review the results of the Humane Killing Workshop, which will be attended by invited technical experts meeting in Cambridge, England, November 10-14, 1980. The objective of the Workshop is to consider whether insights from subjects such as engineering, electronics, ballistics, munitions, explosives, pharmacology, etc., may be used to improve existing techniques of killing whales or to suggest alterna­ tive, more humane techniques.

5. Question: What specific actions will the United States take during the coming year to seek the extension at the 33rd IWC Meeting of the Commission's jurisdiction to include the regulation of small cetaceans?

Response: A substantial block of IWC members did not wish to see the IWC take formal action at the Brighton meeting with respect to management of small cetaceans. This block includes many countries, such as Argentina and Mexico, which are allied with us on conservation issues but which have strong positions with respect to the management a

r 90 o f s to c k s w it h in t h e ir 2 0 0 -m il e j u r i s d i c t i o n s . Be ca us e some p o rp o is e s to c k s a re la r g e ly c o a s ta l m n a tu r e , th e is s u e 1 p a r t i c u l a r l y s e n s it iv e . O peni ng th e q u e s ti o n o f ma na ge me nt S? s m a ll c e ta c e a n s to d is c u s s io n a t th e IWC c o u ld r e s u lt in a lo n g and u n p ro d u c tiv e d e b a te , w it h p o t e n t ia lly n e g a tiv e consequences. T h is is a l l th e mor e tr u e be ca us e many o f th e C om m is sio n e rs a re n o t f u l l y f a m il ia r w it h th e o j- g o in g d is c u s s io n s a t th e Law o f th e Sea C o n fe re n c e . We w i l l d is c u s s t h i s is s u e w it h th e r e le v a n t c o u n tr ie s d u rin g th e n e x t m onth s to se e i f we ca n ch an ge an y o f th e n e g a t v o te s . I f we ca n do so , th e n th e is s u e s h o u ld be p re s s e d v ig o r o u s ly a t th e n e x t m e e ti n g . I f we c a n n o t c o n v in c e d e le g a tio n s to ch an ge t h e i r v o te s , th e s m a ll c e ta c e a ,_ i n n q u e s ti o n may o n ly be a b le to be r e s o lv e d a f t e r th e c o n c lu s io n o f th e Law o f th e Sea C o n fe re n c e . I am c o n fid e n t th e U. . * position strongly favoring inclusion of small cetaceans w il n o t change. Tha nk you f o r th e o p p o r tu n it y t o co m p le te th e re c o rd now b e fo r e th e S ub co m m itte e . <> S in o ^ rV L y y o u rs ,

R ic h a rd A. F ra n k U n it e d S ta te s C om m is sio ner t o th e I n t e r n a t io n a l W h a lin g Com m is si on

i

1 APPENDIX 3

Text of etter L D ated S eptember 25, 1980 to H on . Richard F rank rom F the U.S. D eputy Commissioner to the IWC, T om G arrett

Garrett, Wyoming 82058 September 25, 1980

Honorable Richard Frank Administrator National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Department of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20235

Dear Dick:

Whether the Brighton decision on bowhead whales will be seen eventually as part of a syndrome through which the bowhead was sacrificed, or the beginning of a transition to rational conservation could well depend on the'policies which you set in motion.

I urge you to use your office in the next few months to initiate policies which will put us on course, at last toward rational conservation.

(A) It seems to me that the Eskimos are quite right in calling for a full public airing of the situation. Despite the unwelcome sound and fury hearings would engender, and the possibility that the termite gnawing of lawyers, maundering over technicalities, might drown out substantive findings, I think you ought to have hearings on all aspects of bowhead management. This should certainly include such neglected matters as nutritional and cultural alternatives, enforcement "modes," effort limitation, improved weaponry and elimination of waste. Such hearings could be held under the Whaling I Convention Act. They could also -- as far as I can tell -- be legally held under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. There might (provided that it did not complicate the Government’s position in the current lawsuit over jurisdiction) be certain advantages in the latter course. t (B) It seems to me, since the Commission was unwilling to convene a workshop of experts to consider more humane and efficient methods of killing whales, the U.S. should convene its own workshop on aboriginal killing. The meeting ought to include both native hunters and scientists highly familiar with native killing methods (such as Durham, Bockstoce, Mitchell), along with experts in vertebrate pathology, ballistics and weapon design. I know enough about the latter unhappy callings to be certain that a fairly efficient hand

(M ) 92 h e ld weapo n can be d e sig n e d f o r k i l l i n g w h a le s . W hil e i t ma ke s me somew ha t s ic k to th in k a b o u t t h i s , I do n o t se e much c h o ic e b u t to go ahead an d do i t . I rec om men d t h a t you sc h e d u le a w ork sh op w hic h c o n s id e rs mea ns o f e lim in a tin g w asta g e an d c r u e l ty in k i l l i n g n o t o n ly la r g e w h a le s , b u t ~ sm a ll w h ale s an d p in n ip e d s as w e ll. (C ) You sh o u ld a c t to la y th e fo u n d a tio n f o r r a t i o n a l en fo rc em en t by p u b lis h in g d r a f t r e g u l a ti o n s w hic h e s t a b l i s h a sy ste m o f wea po ns r e g i s t r a t i o n an d w hic h e s t a b l i s h v i l l a g e by village allocations. It is essential to recognize, in developing regulations within the three year block quota, that f a i l u r e to p ro v id e f o r s u b tr a c tio n o f on e y e a r’ s i n f r a c t i o n (overkill) against the overall quota would invite infractions, an d w ou ld b e in conte m pt o f w hat P r o f . O vin gto n b e li e v e s to have been an "understanding" in the commissioners' meeting. F u r th e r , o v e r k i ll in g by on e v i l l a g e sh o u ld — o u t o f f a i r n e s s - - be co u n te d a g a in s t i t s own su b se q u e n t y e a r 's q u o ta , n o t a g a in s t that of all the villages. (> Soon er o r l a t e r , u n le s s th e d e c is io n i s made a t "h ig h le v e ls " to w r it e o f f th e bo whe ad w h a le , so m eo ne, a t som e level, is going to have to face up to the question of enforce­ ment. If real determination exists to see the law enforced, it obviously can be enforced, especially since most violations em an at e fr om one v i l l a g e . I f , h o w ev er, v i o l a t i o n s c o n ti n u e to be sw ep t u n d e r th e ru g , th e p o lic y w hic h o u r govern m ent a d o p ts p u b li c ly , o r in IWC, be co m es im m a te r ia l. . Th e bo whe ad w hale may b e d e s tro y e d - - a l l o th e r e le m e n ts in th e e q u a ti o n a s id e — sim p ly b e c a u se i t wa s e a s i e r to a ll o w i t to be d e str o y e d th a n to make th e h a rd d e c is io n s n eed ed to p r o t e c t i t . The p ro s p e c t o f a c o n f r o n ta tio n on th e ic e i s , a s th e B r it is h s a y , " d a u n tin g ." But i t i s a ls o d a u n ti n g to th e E sk im os. Th e s u r e s t way to e n c o u ra g e d e fia n c e an d p ro d u ce tragic miscalculation is to project an impression of indecision an d i r r e s o l u t i o n . Th e re gim e c o n te m p la te d i s n o t , a f t e r a l l , o p p re s sio n su ch a s n a ti v e p e o p le s e ls e w h e re (m o st r e c e n t ly the entire population of Diego Garcia Island) have so often s u f fe re d th ro u g h th e k in d o f f i c e s o f o u r g o v ern m en t, b u t action barely adequate (at best) to insure the long-term p r e s e r v a tio n o f th e bo whe ad w h ale an d o f Esk im o c u l t u r e . (D ) You s h o u ld , in c o o p e ra tio n w ith t h a t agency w hic h c la im s " t r u s t r e s p o n s i b i l i t y " o v e r E sk im os, b e g in s e t t i n g up the technical infrastructure needed to eliminate waste and test nutritional and cultural alternatives. With respect to I waste, I am told confidentially, from within the Eskimo community, that while utilization of wha le products has improved enormously since ,the m id -1 97 0’s, some was te still occurs. Waste of walrus and seals killed is overt. Th re e- technical fixes for ameliorating this problem come to mind: (a) the establishment of cold storage units to prevent waste through deterioration in storage, (b) the setting up of efficient tryworks to render edible oils from the blubber of whales and pinnipeds which might otherwise be unused, and (c) establishing means of redistributing mar ine mammal products among villages. Once the technical obstacles to solving waste in utilization have been removed, the agencies can and should demand full utilization of all marine mammals killed. I know of no "management authority" anywhere else in the world which condones the deliberate waste of animals killed as does our government in the case of walrus, and other animals taken under the aboriginal exemption in the Marine Mammal Protection Act.

I would like to conclude with some remarks on the "white" invasions of the Arctic,.on Eskimo culture and on the evident validity of certain arguments used to jus tify a large kill of bowheads.

The Eskimo people have suffered a great deal at the hands of the white man; through the introduction of contagious diseases such as measles and syphilis; from whiskey and processed food; from the commercial destruction of animals upon which they relied for subsistence. Such factors brought about the extinction of at least one Eskimo tribe, the Sadlermuit of Southhampton Island. But the Eskimos have not yet faced anything even related to the violent, often deliberately genocidal aggression mounted against native people elsewhere on the continent.

The reason for the comparatively benign white treatment of Eskimos in the past stems from the fact that Eskimos (a) did not resist, but instead assisted white whalers in exploiting bowheads and other north ern mammals, these being, until recently the only commercially exploitable Arctic resource, and (b) Eskimo assistance was (and sometimes still is) necessary for the very survival of overwintering whalers and other whites. There existed, in short, economic reasons for keeping the Eskimos in place rather than getting rid of them. 94

All this, unfortunately, is changing. Industrial society, in the form of the great oil companies, is massively invading the Arctic. The Eskimos are faced with the loss of the Arctic marine environment, the basis of their physical and cultural survival. If the oil companies are allowed to develop in an "economically optimal" way, disaster is not only possible, but certain. The Eskimos are resisting. The oil companies are prevented by the technicality that development is offshore from direchly buying the Eskimos off as the Crees were bought off at James Bay, and have been unable -- so far -- to control the involved governments sufficiently to use them to sweep aside native opposition. The presence of Eskimos in the Arctic, instead of being convenient, even necessary, for ex­ ploitation, has become an impediment to development. There are now economic reasons for getting rid of the Eskimos as culturally cohesive communities capable of forming the core of resistance to Arctic development. Policies which hasten the disintegration of Eskimo society favor development. If the oil companies are unsuccessful in buying the Eskimos or having the government bulldoze them aside, such policies are essential (> for development.

Seen in this perspective, the policies of the Department of Interior take on greater consistency. We have DOI, on one hand, pushing for large-scale development, fully willing to accept the destruction of the A rctic marine environment (and, of course, Eskimo culture) as part of the "price" for oil. On the other hand we have DOI taking an ostensibly pro-Eskimo position by backin g their demands for "self-regulation" of whaling. But what would have been the effects of a continued "hands off" policy toward Eskimo w hal ing such as existed prior to 1978? As the Braham-Breiwick analysis clearly shows, continued slaughter on the 1977 level would have brought about a violent bowhead population crash in the 1980's. If killing trends had followed the effort trends which have carried through partially even into regulated hunting, the crash would have come sooner and wo uld have been even more disastrous. In either case, accentuating the situation which currently applies, the decline woul d have continued inexorably and for a protracted period even with belated full protection. By the time (assuming belated protection) the first unravaged age class had reached recruitment age, much, or most, of its parent brood stock would have died of old age. The effects of this "post-crash" situation (assuming either belate d protection or continued killing to extinction) on Eskimo culture, if we accept the

1

I 95

t h e s i s t h a t th e a n n u a l s l a u g h t e r o f a c o n s i d e r a b le num ber o f bow hea d w h a le s i s n e e d e d f o r i t s c o n t i n u a t i o n , w ould h a v e b e e n c a t a c l y s m ic . I n f a c t , i t w o u ld h a v e b e e n f a t a l .

One i s r e m in d e d , i n c o n s i d e r i n g t h i s s c e n a r i o , o f t h e _ f a c t t h a t t h e p l a i n s I n d i a n s i n t h e U n ite d S t a t e s w e re b r o u g h t t o t h e i r k n e e s l e s s on t h e b a t t l e f i e l d th a n by th e d e s t r u c t i o n o f w hat P h i l S h e r id a n c a l l e d ’’th e I n d i a n 's c o m m is sa ry '' : th e A m eri can b i s o n . S h e r i d a n , I n t e r i o r S e c r e t a r y C olo m bu s D e la n o an d o th e r s f r e e l y a d m itte d t h a t i t w as o f f i c i a l U n ite d S t a t e s p o l ic y t o e x te r m i n a te t h e b i s o n i n o r d e r to s u b ju g a te t h e I n d i a n s . I t i s f a r f e t c h e d t o s u p p o s e t h a t th e p u t a t i v e a r c h i t e c t o f c u r r e n t DOI bow head p o l i c y h a s th o u g h t t h i n g s o u t in t h i s w ay . I t i s n o t a t a l l f a r f e t c h e d to t h in k t h a t * o t h e r " d e c i s i o n m a k e rs " may t a k e due n o te o f th e l i k e l i h o o d t h a t , i f l e f t a l o n e , th e E sk im o s w i l l r a p i d l y k i l l th e m s e lv e s i n t o d ep en d e n cy on im p o r te d fo o d a n d h e n c e i n t o c o n t r o l l a b i l i t y .

What I n t e r i o r o b v io u s ly m u st h a v e know n, i n any c a s e , ' a b o u t i t s bow head p o l i c i e s w as t h a t th e y ( a ) e n c o u ra g e d Esk im o d e f ia n c e o f NOAA, ( b ) e x a c e r b a te d t h e i r q u a r r e l w ith th e c o n s e r v a t i o n i s t s an d ( c ) d i v e r t e d E sk im o h o s t i l i t y fr o m I n t e r i o r and th e o i l c o m p a n ie s . A ll o f t h e s e r e s u l t s h a v e b e e n h e l p f u l to d e v e l o p e r s . F u r t h e r , t h e ja b b e rw o c k y fr om I n t e r i o r d i g n if y i n g d e s t r u c t i v e c h a n g e a s " a c u l t u r a t i o n " se em s d e s ig n e d t o h a s te n th e e x t i n c t i o n o f p u r e E sk im o t r a d i t i o n , an d th e d i s i n t e g r a t i o n o f E sk im o s o c i e t y .

The " f r i e n d s h i p " o f t h e B u re a u o f I n d ia n A f f a i r s f o r E sk im os re m in d s o n e o f th e f r i e n d s h i p o f J o h n S t e in b e c k 's u n h e ro in "T he W in te r o f O ur D i s c o n t e n t " f o r h i s a l c o h o l i c b oyhood ch um . He in d u c e d h i s f r i e n d t o w i l l him o v e r h i s p r o p e r t y , th e n s u p p l i e d h im a l l t h e w h is k e y h e c o u ld d r i n k t o g e t i t s o o n e r . T he s e e m in g ly d i s p a r a t e " h o r n s " o f I n t e r i o r ’ s p o l ic y to w a rd E sk im o s a r e a t t a c h e d , i t se em s t o m e, to t h e sa me h e a d .

W ha t c a n b e d o n e t o p r e s e r v e t r a d i t i o n a l E sk im o s o c i e t y , w h ile p r e s e r v i n g t h e bow head w h a le ? I f we a c c e p t t h e v ie w (w h ic h I d o ) t h a t a t r a d i t i o n a l E sk im o s o c i e t y i s n e c e s s a r y t o s ta v e o f f d e s t r u c t i o n o f th e A r c t i c e n v ir o n m e n t, and a t th e same tim e a c c e p t t h e v ie w p e d d le d b y I n t e r i o r t h a t a l a r g e a n n u a l k i l l o f b o w h ead s i s n e e d e d t o r e t a i n s u c h a s o c i e t y . - - th e m or e k i l l i n g t h e m ore c u l t u r e r - t h e s i t u a t i o n a p p e a r s h o p e le s s , an d i n f a c t t e r m i n a l . F o r t u n a t e l y , h o w e v e r, t h e "m ore k i l l , m ore c u l t u r e " id e a i s n o t s u p p o r te d by th e h i s t o r i c a l r e c o r d , and on t h a t b a s i s ( w ith o u t k n o w in g , o r c la im in g t o know , a n y th in g f i r s t h a n d a b o u t t h e c u r r e n t s t a t e o f I n u p i a t c u l t u r e )

r 96

I feel fairly certain that it is false. Following the cultural adjustments w hich resulted from the first invasion of whalers and other whites, Eskimo culture seems to have changed slowly from 1910 or ,so into the early 19 60 ’s. From the early 19 60 ’s to the present time Eskimo villages have been wracked by rapid, and by any rational standard, culturally, disruptive changes. During the period of relative stability the bowhead kill was quite low. During the period of rapid, destructive social change it accelerated dramatically. Since it is acknowledged that the increased effort underlying the hi gh kill was made possible by the Alaska pipeline, it is obvious that this correlation is no t accidental.

If one had nothing to go on except a village-by-village correlation from 1910-1977 between cultural change and bowhead 1 kill, one would conclude (a) that high bow head kill produced cultural disruption or (b) that cultural disruption produced high bowhead kills. With more information we can see that (a) is out of the question and that (b) is correct only in an indirect sense. But wh at such a correlation exercise does * seem to demonstrate is that rapid cultural decay is not inevitable when the kill of bowheads is small, and that a large kill of bowheads does not, of itself, prevent rapid cultural decay. If you could find a base period when cultural decay was minimal, and external pressure was comparable to that of the present, an optimal bowhead kill might be derived. But there is no such base period, and any derivation of "cultural need" by simply averaging out bowhead kills over the years as DOI's paper does, reduces to absurdity.

The historical record provides reason to believe that Eskimo culture can survive with a comparatively small number of whales, providing external stress is minimized and other means of reinforcement utilized. Since any other approach, most particularly that calling for a high annual bowhead kill, "writes off" Eskimo culture at about the end of the century, the policy of reducing external stress, enhancing other cultural reinforcements, and reducing the kil l of bowheads to a very low level, probably no more than one per village annually, is the only policy whic h has any chance of effect­ ing the survival of Inupiat culture for a protracted period.

What I hope for is a m ovement into the Arctic offshore fight by the same strong, mainline conservation groups which carried the Alask a lands fight; the forging of a new native- conservationist alliance; the advent of rational government

1

T policies on offshore development and whales in both the U.S. and Canada, and the avoidance of an ecological disaster in the Arctic. What I expect is quite different: the collapse of Inupiat resistance leaving the conservationists isolated and ineffectual; U.S. government policies which reach new lows in cynicism and destructiveness and which opt for "self regulation" of bowheads to break up a conservationist- Inupiat alliance; the end of any recognizable Inupiat culture by about the turn of the century. I expect an ecological disaster of the first magnitude in the high Arctic, and I expect the extinction of the bowhead whale.

One major reason why I am so pessimistic is because of my assessment of Eskimo society. It seems to me that long isolation has left Eskimo society with little in the way of an immune system with which to resist alien implants. Without the neophobia which has lent such resilience to, for example, Hopi culture, outside influences take on malignant character. The hostility the Eskimos are now, belatedly, evincing toward outsiders is not enough to save them as long as destructive influences are already at work, more or less unchecked, within their society. Without the capacity for self criticism, and I see little evidence of this among Inupiat, without voices equivalent to those of Amos or Isaiah railing internally for purification and reform, can Eskimo society survive?

The specific characteristic of Eskimo people which I find most disturbing is their inability to grasp the need for conservation. Many observers have remarked on this, from Tinbergen in the 1920’s to Durham in the 1970's. I know of instance after instance of wasteful mass slaughter by northern hunters. The most recent, related to me by Dr. McTaggart Cowan at Brighton, is the alleged slaughter by Canadian natives last year, of 20,000 caribou, most of which were left where they had fallen. While this attitude may be understandable in the evolutionary context, since the very last thing a small human population with primitive weapons needed to be concerned with was overkilling, it argues powerfully that "self regulation and mo dem weapons are usually incompatible, and that the alternative to imposed conservation is the disappearance of hunted species and hunting-based culture.

Sincerely

Tom Garrett O

f