« PreviousContinue »
136, 794 $17,008
135,983 $16, 866
147, 427 $19, 895
133, 605 $18, 929
117,547 $15, 673
This downhill production record is not encouraging for new investment in vessels.
To add or further complicate by allowing other types of industry to explore, develop or mine these grounds for minerals or gas and oil would most certainly produce an unbearable burden. Two years ago, through the use of explosives used by exploration vessels, miles of dead fish were observed by our fishermen, floating on the surface of the water. The destruction of food and food sources should be prohibited by all means.
The erection and installation of drilling rigs always poses a potential danger. Recently there was an accident in the North Sea where a drilling rig collapsed and a fire resulted. The fire raged out of control for several months before it could be stopped and the danger eliminated. There was also an oil spillage or leakage at Cook Inlet, Alaska, which caused an oil well to discharge an uncontrollable flood of oil for more than a year, ruining marshes and killing numbers of birds as well. If such a similar accident should happen at Georges Bank or the Nantucket Shoals, it would cut out many trips from our fishermen's income. In addition, spillage of the oil, whether from a tanker or a drilling rig, will injure the fishery stocks as well as other wildlife in the area and, finally, our Cape Cod beaches could be ruined.
We ask that the Secretary of the Interior institute the study suggested and submit a complete report to the Congress after its completion. Furthermore, until such a study has been undertaken and a report filed, any licenses or permits for exploration, development or mining of any part of the Outer Continental Shelf be suspended. Yours truly,
OCTAVIO A. MODESTO,
VENTURA, CALIF. Chairman ALTON LENNON, Subcommittee on Oceanography, House Office Building, Washington, D.C.
CHAIRMAN LENNON: I support the marine study sanctuary bills. We need the marine sanctuaries as an underwater wildlife sanctuary. Certain areas, such as ours, are rich in marine life. Some oil wells are going to be put out at sea in our area. The consequence of an oil well breaking there would be disastrous. This would kill off thousands and thousands of sea animals, perhaps making them extinct. Obviously the Santa Barbara Channel area should be kept free of all oil expeditions. The passage of the marine sanctuary study bill would keep areas like these free of all potential sea hazards due to man. If the bill passes, please seriously consider the Santa Barbara Channel area. Please put my letter in the record. Thank you. Cordially yours,
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIF., April 4, 1968. Congressman ALTON LENNON, Chairman, Subcommittee on Oceanography, House of Representatives, House
Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN: I should strongly like my views entered into the hearing record on these following as being in favor of their enactment: H.R. 11584 ; H.R. 12007; H.R. 11868; and H.R. 11769.
There is no question that there is great need of further study into the subject of establishing certain portions of the shelf and tidelands as marine sanctuaries.
I should also like the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee to specify the Georges Bank and Santa Barbara Channel as study areas. Thank you for considering my views. Sincerely,
MASSACHUSETTS CONSERVATION COUNCIL,
April 15, 1968. SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY, COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES, House of Representatives, House Office Building, Washington, D.C.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I am Conrad Chapman, residing at 17 West Cedar Street, Bogton, Massachusetts, and my statement is presented in the name of the Massachusetts Conservation Council, representing 26 civic and conservation organizations of the Commonwealth.
I believe it to be fair to say that the membership of these organizations endorses very strongly the statement made by Congressman Hastings Keith, presented at your open hearing on April 9, on Marine Sanctuaries.
The threat to the commercial fishing and the total impact of oil exploration off the coast of Massachusetts on the marine ecology is of very great concern to us. We believe that it is a threat to the whole marine food supply. We contend that the oil situation is not so critical at this time that it cannot be delayed until studies can be completed and thus assure us that damage of an irreparable nature will not be done through ignorance of facts.
We are well aware that H.R. 25 constitutes some slight overlap with H.R. 11584. However, it is recognized that in order to secure passage of H.R. 25 it was so weakened as to be almost worthless. Furthermore, it deals mainly with estuaries and we are concerned with waters farther out. H.R. 25 is so comprehensive in scope that it cannot deal adequately with specific situations and this is a very specific problem. We believe that H.R. 11584 would simply serve to make the comprehensive estuary measure more effective in this one critical area.
I am sure that many of my fellow citizens will be shocked to learn of the rather sudden reversal of position taken by Mr. Clarence F. Pautzko on this bill. At this writing, we are not clear as to why this happened.
The numerous blunders that have occurred in connection with technology and environment are a matter of public concern. The nation is faced with expenditures in billions to mitigate damage that could have been prevented by careful planning in the first place. We urge the Congress to take the precautions necessary to prevent a repetiton of mistakes of the past in the off-shore oil exploration in question.
The people of Massachusetts have a right to the protection of an adequate study and we are sure that H.R. 25 will not provide it.
It is respectfully requested that this statement be made a part of the record of this hearing.
The Massachusetts Conservation Council thanks the Subcommittee for the opportunity to present its views.
CONRAD CHAPMAN, Chairman.
SANTA BARBARA, CALIF., April 10, 1968. Representative ALTON LENNON, Chairman, Subcommittee on Oceanography, House Committee on Merchant Marine
and Fisheries, House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN LENNON: This is to register an emphatic approval of the measures under discussion at your recent hearing to schedule sanctuary studies of sea and lakes areas, as a prelude to setting up water reserves.
In Santa Barbara we are seeing the first rush of special interests to exploit, and ultimately destroy, the scenic and sealife value of parts of the Pacific, in the interests of oil profits. The Great Lakes, my native area, has become so polluted that it will be difficult to find a watery wilderness worth preserving. Exploitation and destruction has been the keynote of American development from this nation's first years, and it is far past time to save what litle remains from he oncemagnificent endowment of natural resources and beauty bestowed upon this continent.
Even if you begin the requisite studies now, the legislative process will move so slowly that we can expect more valuable areas to be lost to man's enjoyment before protective means are established. But it is essential to start immediately before all water resources are irretrievably lost. Please be sure to include in the final bill on sanctuary studies the imperiled Santa Barbara Channel, the Georges Bank off Cape Cod, and the much abused Great Lakes without which the interior midwest will be a much drearier place for habitation. Sincerely,
JEANNE R. SOLLEN.
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SANTA BARBARA,
Santa Barbara, Calif., April 15, 1968. Hon. ALTON LENNON, House Office Building, Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. LENNON : The Marine Sanctuary Study Bills your subcommittee has just considered concern a concept that is a natural extension of the National Wilderness Preservation System. As an historian of the American attitude toward wilderness (Wilderness and the American Mind, Yale University Press, 1967), may I observe that Marine sanctuaries present an opportunity to act in the public's recreational interest before the commencement of heavy economic use. Conservation has usually brought up the rear of the procession. But taking positive action now on marine sanctuaries, particularly in such areas as the Georges Bank and the Santa Barbara Channel, will make it possible to reduce irrevocable and regrettable transformations of our coastal regions.
Yesterday I sailed to Santa Cruz Island in the Santa Barbara Channel. The day was perfect, and there were many sailers, skindivers, surfers, and powerboaters enjoying the sea. We saw seals and dolphins and killer whales. I hope I can count on your support of the principle of marine sanctuaries and that this letter can be included in the record. Yours sincerely,
APRIL 9, 1968. DEAR REPRESENTATIVE LENNON: I am very interested, as a conservationist from way back, in all measures aimed at preserving the beauty, utility, and scientific value of our natural environment. We need uncontaminated tidelands for continued harvesting of sea foods, and we need protection for the Santa Barbara Channel Island area and the Georges Bank of Massachusetts for their great value for the study and preservation of marine life. Let us save while we can! Please include my remarks in the record. On the final bill, keep these 2 areas as sanctuaries, please. Sincerely,
SPORT FISHING INSTITUTE,
Washington, D.C., May 22, 1968. Hon. ALTON LENNON, Chairman, Subcommittee on Oceanography of the House Committee on Merchant
Marine and Fisheries, House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN LENNON: The Sport Fishing Institute wishes to take this opportunity to comment on the many and various bills concerning the establishment of marine sanctuaries in representative bodies, both fresh and marine, of water within the United States. We certainly favor a “moratorium” on underwater mining and oil derivation where it is affecting both the sport and commercial fisheries. However, we do wish to interject a word of caution that the term "sanctuary” itself does not become sacrosanct to all uses.
The term conservation to us means a wise use of our renewable natural resources. If such is barred from the non-expediters we would register strong complaint. However, if there is a non-renewable aspect to the use, in other words were there total destruction of the habitat or inhabitants, would we feel that strong use restrictions should be imposed.
Sport Fishing Institute has testified under various portions of these considerations previously ; viz: the establishment of the Channel Islands as a National Park, off the Santa Barbara County coast. This primarily was to assure continued public access to some of the West Coast's finest sport fisheries without private domination precluding such use of this renewable natural resource.
At such time as your Committee chooses specific proposed legislation to cover this proposal we should like to have the opportunity to comment again. I believe that in reviewing the legislation now proposed broader coverage is given in H.R. 11584 wherein an authorization would be given the Secretary of Interior to study the most feasible and desirable means of establishing certain portions of the tidelands, Outer Continental Shelf, seaward areas, and Great Lakes of the United States as marine sanctuaries.
We do recognize that there are considerable values of the marine ecosystems and that they should be preserved for future generations. Loss of these values because of commercial and domestic conflicts could be most detrimental. Balanced uses can be realized in these areas if there is provision for retention of their natural character. The President's Science Advisory Committee has recommended the creation of marine sanctuaries as a means of preserving the quality of as much as possible of the unmodified or useful marine environment and to make an effort to restore as much of the damaged environment as possible. These are similar to the many efforts made to establish a good many of the terrestrial wilderness and primitive areas that do have their place in our modern society. However, we do not wish to see such practices become too universal in scope inasmuch as there is great need nowadays to satisfy the outdoor recreationists and from the ORREC report we find that sport fishing rates as one of the uppermost in public participation, which fact cannot be denied.
Kindly include these remarks in any record of hearings on this subject.
PHILIP A. DOUGLAS,
SEATTLE, WASH., April 11, 1968. Chairman ALTON LENNON, House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House Office Building, Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. LENNON: This letter is to urge favorable consideration of H.R. 11584, 12007, 11868, and 11769, which would require the Secretary of Interior to conduct studies of potential marine sanctuaries, with an aim towards eventual setting asidè of suitable areas.
This is a most commendable concept, and in my view, is a necessary counterpart to the Wilderness Act of 1964. This is such a rapidly growing and urbanizing nation; we are losing far too much each day of the lands and waters that our forefathers knew and appreciated. Anything we can do these days to set aside at least a few representative areas of what our nation once looked like should be encouraged.
The legislation above referred to you now before your committee is most commendable legislation. I do, however, also urge that it be strengthened by making certain that the George's Bank and the Santa Barbara Channel be specified in
the final draft of the bill as study areas. Please make this letter a part of the record of the April 9–10 hearings on the Marine Sanctuary Study bills. Very truly yours,
M. BROCK EVANS.
Los ANGELES, CALIF., April 19, 1968. Chairman ALTON LENNON, Subcommittee on Oceanography of House Committee on Merchant Marine and
Fisheries, House Office Building, Washington, D.C. MY DEAR MR. LENNON : Marine sanctuary bills, H.R. 11584 (Keith), H.R. 11868 (Brown), H.R. 11869 (Tunney) and H.R. 12007 (Burton) all express an urgent need for the requirement for the Secretary of Interior to conduct a study of marine sanctuaries in cooperation with other agencies, communities, and interested citizens.
Such sanctuaries are imperative for the preservation of sea and shore life and for the preservation of at least some sanctuaries of quality environment.
It is good to note that two areas are specified for study, Georges Bank off Cape Cod and the Santa Barbara Channel on the Pacific shore.
I have visited both these areas within the year and realize that it is high time that permanent protective plans be made.
Please see that the final bill includes both these sites for study.
Within the week, I have visited tidepools on the Pacific coast that used to be considered "inexhaustible” for sea life. They present a sorry picture as does the oil-spoiled shore with occasional rotting birds to remind us of the hideous death misplaced oil and other contaminations impose upon the hapless creatures we enjoy so much.
Marine Sanctuaries are vital, constructive, and of urgent need, now.
NATIONAL FISHERIES INSTITUTE, INC.,
Washington, D.C., April 24, 1968. CHAIRMAN, MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES COMMITTEE, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The National Fisheries Institute would like to go on record in support of the position taken by the Boston Fisheries Association on H.R. 11584, to establish a marine sanctuary.
The entire problem of proper utilization of our marine resources is one that deserves thorough study. Certainly the portion of the industry that depends upon the fishing resources in the Georges Banks is beset by enough problems in the form of resource depletion and competition from the Russians without being harmed by additional, uncontrolled and unknown burdens from oil operations.
We very strongly urge that provisions of the bill for protection of these resources, while adequate study is performed, is in the best interests of the fishing industry and the nation. Sincerely yours,
LEE J. WEDDIG,
Executive Director. (Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the subcommittee recessed, subject to the call of the Chair.)