"Under War Production Board General Imports Order M-63, customs officers do not permit the entry of fish scrap, fish meal, and certain fish liver oil (including halibut liver oil) unless a form required by the War Production Board is filed with the entry. "Fish and other products of the fishing industry have been provided for in both the dutiable list and the free list of the Tariff Act of 1930. 'All products of American fisheries (including fish, shellfish, and other marine animals, and spermaceti, whale, fish, and other marine animal oils)' are free of duty under paragraph 1730 (a), Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C., sec. 1201, par. 1730 (a)), subject to certain exceptions. Paragraph 1756 of the tariff act (19 U. S. C., sec. 1201, par. 1756) provides for the free entry of sea herring, smelts, and tuna fish in several forms, and the free entry of shellfish is covered by paragraph 1761 of that act (19 U. S. C., sec. 1201, par. 1761). Fish which are not free under paragraph 1730 or other provisions of the tariff act and which are fit for human consumption, including fish roe, are dutiable at various rates under paragraphs 717 to 721, inclusive, of the tariff act (19 U. S. C., sec. 1001, pars. 717 to 721, inclusive), as modified pursuant to the trade agreements with Cuba (49 Stat. 3559), Canada (53 Stat. 2348), Mexico, Argentina (56 Stat. 1685), the United Kingdom (54 Stat. 1897), the Netherlands (50 Stat. 1504), and Iceland, and the proclamation of the President dated December 14, 1933 (48 Stat. 1722). (As volumes of the Statutes at Large containing the agreements with Mexico and Iceland are not in the Bureau's possession, there are attached copies of T. D. 50797 and T. D. 50956, setting forth the pertinent parts of those agreements.) "Fish sounds, fish skins, and fish imported to be used for purposes other than human consumption are free of duty under paragraphs 1624, 1677, and 1678 of the tariff act (19 U. S. C., sec. 1201, pars. 1624, 1677, and 1678), and tankage, fish scrap, fish meal, cod-liver oil cake, and cod-liver oil cake meal, all unfit for human consumption, are free under paragraph 1780 of the tariff act (19 U. S. C., sec. 1201, par. 1780). Cod oil, cod-liver oil, and eulachon oil are free of duty under paragraph 1730 (b) of the tariff act (19 U. S. C., sec. 1201, par. 1730 (b)), and inedible fish oils and livers used chiefly for medicinal purposes are covered generally in paragraphs 34 and 1669 of the act (19 U. S. C., sec. 1001, par. 34, and sec. 1201, par. 1669). The rates of duty applicable to various other fish oils are prescribed in paragraph 52 of the tariff act (19 U. S. C., sec. 1001, par. 52). In addition, some fish oils are also subject to a tax under section 2491 (a) of the I. R. C. (26 U. S. C., sec. 2491 (a)). "This office has no suggestions for increasing the development of fisheries products, their transportation, distribution, and use as foods and for industrial and agricultural purposes, nor for any legislation which would assist in the development of the fisheries." If further information is necessary to the purposes of your inquiry, we shall, of course, be very happy to endeavor to supply it. Very truly yours, HERBERT E. GASTON, Acting Secretary of the Treasury. Mr. MCCANN. The following letters have been received from the State Conservation Departments of the State of Wisconsin, the State of West Virginia, the State of Missouri, the State of Minnesota, the State of Idaho, the State of Ohio, and the State of Indiana. These letters will be received in evidence and reproduced at this point. (The letters referred to are as follows:) THE STATE OF WISCONSIN, Mr. J. HARDIN PETERSON, June 15, 1944. DEAR MR. PETERSON: This is in reference to your letter of June 10 to the Wisconsin Conservation Department in which you ask for our recommendations insofar as they affect the jurisdiction of your committee. In conferring with representatives of our commercial fishing staff of this department it was suggested that consideration be given to the amount or pounds of fish produced by an individual with respect to his being certified for draft deferment. Under the present regulations the deferment of men is based on the tonnage of the boat operated. In our opinion, this should not be taken into consideration, but the total catch of any commercial fisherman should be prorated between the men in his employ. Many commercial fishing operators use very small boats to go to and from their nets and these same fishermen do catch large amounts of fish. Caution on the establishment of price ceilings we believe also to be advisable. If the ceiling is placed too low we believe it would discourage an individual from fish production in view of the high cost of materials and labor shortages. Hoping these suggestions will be of some value to our committee, I am, ROBT. A. GRAY, Assistant Director (For the Director). STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA, Hon. J. HARDIN PETERSON, Chairman, Subcommittee on Fisheries of the DEAR CONGRESSMAN PETERSON: I have asked Mr. B. D. Wills, acting fish technician for the Conservation Commission of West Virginia, to make any comments he felt advisable in connection with your letter of June 2, inviting the commission to furnish you any information or suggestions with reference to our problems in fisheries which might be helpful to your committee. Mr. Wills com ments as follows: 1. The State of West Virginia has materially increased its trout production by constructing additional rearing ponds with nonessential war material during the present year. Fish reared in these ponds are stocked in the streams of the State for public fishing. 2. West Virginia, like many other States, is being called upon for a heavy production of lumber during the war emergency, which means loose timbering practices, destruction, and bare mountain sides, all of which will contribute to rapid run-offs of rain and the eventual loss of good fishing streams. 3. Replanting and stream improvement work will be necessary to bring these streams back to normal, which will involve considerable expense, equipment, and manpower. Federal financial aid will be required to do this work properly. Cordially yours, JACK SHIPMAN, Executive Director. STATE OF MISSOURI, Hon. J. HARDIN PETERSON, CONSERVATION COMMISSION, Chairman, Subcommittee on Fisheries of the Committee on the Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. PETERSON: Your request for a report of the activities of the conservation commission during the war period in connection with commercial fisheries to secure a comprehensive picture of commercial fisheries in Missouri during the war has been received. The only waters which are commercialized in Missouri are our portions of the Missouri, Mississippi, and the lower St. Francis Rivers. In the past, reports of sales have been required only from wholesale dealers whose fresh-water products are shipped mostly from the lower Mississippi and the lake regions. Our commercial fishermen whose sales are mostly to the consumers or to local retail vendors began reporting monthly on a voluntary basis only this year in connection_with the Mississippi survey being conducted by the States of Missouri, Illinois, Iowa, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, cooperating with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and other agencies in an investigation of the status of the biological resources of the Mississippi River. The purposes of this investigation part of the war effort program are: First, determine whether an increased take of commercial fishes for food is possible feasible; second, to establish a sound biological basis for fisheries liberali which will be mutually acceptable to States having common Mississippi h waters; and third, to study the problem of coordinating the lowering and raising of impounded waters behind Government dams in the interest of navigation with the best possible preservation or increase of useful biological resources. Following this survey which is expected to be completed in October, we should have the information desired. At the present, we only know, as you suggest, that the effect of the war on commercial fisheries has been the disruption of essential supplies of sea foods, with a growing demand for commercial fisheries in ponds, lakes, and streams for the production of an adequate supply of fish to meet local demands. In some cases, such demands bordered on exploitation. The commission, however, was able satisfy these demands, at least in part, by removing the closed season on taking the food or rough fishes from Missouri waters for the duration of the war. Commercial taking, however, is still permitted only in the waters mentioned above. DEAR SIR: Your letter of May 31 addressed to the department of conservation with reference to Office of Price Administration regulations, etc., has been turned over to me for reply. In our rough fish removal operations we have an approximate annual take of 8,500,000 pounds of carp, buffalofish, and bullheads; 90 percent of this take is placed on the market for human consumption. In our State crew operations we have a number of automotive units and in the operation of these units we are experiencing considerable difficulty in getting tire replacements. At the present time we are urgently in need of two new light trucks and we are having difficulty in getting certificates for the purchase of this equipment. Due to our inability to obtain the necessary automotive equipment we have lost, by fish dying, a considerable amount of poundage which otherwise might have been placed on the market for human consumption. It would seem to us that the Office of Price Administration and the Office of Defense Transportation should ease their regulations relative to the obtaining of equipment for commercial fishing activities. Trusting that you may use this datum to advantage, I am, Cordially yours, S. M. ROBINSON, Commercial Fisheries Supervisor. STATE OF IDAHO, DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME, MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES INVESTIGATING COMMITTEE, (Attention J. Hardin Peterson, Chairman, Subcommittee on Fisheries.) GENTLEMEN: Commercial fishing under permit for detrimental nongame fish species has been carried on for several years in Idaho. In the spring of 1943 this program was greatly enlarged, both to remove undesirable fish and to contribute to the war effort by furnishing food for human use. At this time in addition to general expansion, a new program was inaugurated to rid lakes of north Idaho of tench and to reduce the bullhead population in several lakes where they have become overpopulated and detrimental to more desirable game fish. The following is a tabulation of fish marketed in 1943: Dressed bullheads (183,230 pounds). $46, 644. 53 8, 644, 25 739. 30 Of the above totals the following poundages of fish, which included carp, suckers, chubs, etc., were utilized for purposes other than human consumption. Commercial fish hatcheries__. Idaho State fish hatcheries. Commercial fur farms_ Idaho State bird farm___ Prices received for the bulk of the fish were as follows: Human use: Dressed bullheads_ Round bullheads_ Smoked bullheads_ Dressed tench__ Smoked tench.. Carp (entrails removed). Suckers, carp, chubs, etc., in the round for use at fur Pounds 188, 883 62, 782 10, 000 9, 700 28, 665 25 cents per pound. 14 to 2 cents per pound. Idaho has a number of commercial trout farms, including the Snake River Trout Co. at Buhl, which is the largest in the United States. In addition there are in operation the Meader Trout Farms at Pocatello; H. S. Frame Trout Farm, Twin Falls; Mary Alice Trout Farm, Twin Falls; and Caribou Trout Ranch, Soda Springs. Very little has been done in Idaho in reference to stocking of private ponds by individuals for their own use. We have no particular problems connected with our commercial fishing except the difficulty of finding markets for tench, carp, and suckers, and markets for bullheads from May 1 to September 1. The bulk of the bullheads are marketed in California which has a closed season on bullheads from May 1 to August 31. I hope that this letter has in a measure furnished you with the information you desire. Very truly yours, IDAHO FISH AND GAME DEPARTMENT, STATE OF OHIO, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Hon. J. HARDIN PETERSON, Chairman, Subcommittee on Fisheries of the Committee on the Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: Replying to your letter of June 1 relative to the acute problems of the fisheries in Ohio, I wish to say that in my opinion one of the greatest handicaps for the utilization of the harvest is lack of storage facilities during the peak netting season as huge quantities of fish, particularly sheepshead, apparently are wasted. From my own observation I believe it to be contributed to the lack of storage facilities. In my opinion the sheepshead is a far more palatable fish than many of the salt-water fishes which are being consumed. I believe that if your committee could make these storage facilities available to the commercial fishing interests within the State of Ohio, that you would do much to conserve what is now an unused resource. Yours very truly, DON WATERS, Commissioner. Hon. J. HARDIN PETERSON, STATE OF INDIANA, DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION, Chairman, Subcommittee on Fisheries of the Committee on the Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN PETERSON: This will answer your letter of May 31. Due to the limited number of commercial fisheries that Indiana has on Lake Michigan, we feel that we have no problems worthy of being submitted to the Committee on the Merchant Marine and Fisheries. The largest commercial fisheries firm in the State is located at Michigan City, and at the present they are reduced to the use of one boat. Our greatest problem seems to be due to the fact that the various States bordering on the Great Lakes have such a difference in their regulations. This makes it difficult for our fishermen to go into other waters and meet all the requirements. However, I am of the opinion that fishermen in this State and others interested would not favor Federal control or Federal participation in any regulations. Yours very truly, HUGH A. BARNHART, Director, Department of Conservation. (Whereupon, at 2 p. m., the hearing was adjourned.) |