« PreviousContinue »
Senator Cordon. Do you mean you also have a reserve that is superimposed on a national forest with respect to game!
Mr. RHODE. No, sir; the elk are on there and we have an open and closed season. We regulate the game and the fish on the national forest.
Senator CORDON. You do that all over Alaska? Mr. RHODE. Yes, sir. Senator CORDON. Now, what else do you have in the way of reserve where the Secretary of Interior sits in judgment?
Mr. RHODE. Mostly they are small areas with the exception of the island which sits in the Bering Sea there. That is a fairly large area, and that is set aside for two purposes, the migratory bird-nesting area, and for a herd of musk ox that we brought there from Greenland with an attempt to build them up and plant them back on the mainland. It is the only musk ox on American soil.
Senator Cordon. How long have you had the musk ox on it?
Senator CORDON. And what are the musk ox doing with respect to increasing in population ?
Mr. RHODE. They are not doing too well. We originally put 25 on there and we have go now, after 20 years, which is quite disappointing.
At one time they were a species common to the Alaskan Arctic but were killed out late in the last century. And we got these from Greenland in an attempt to build them up, and we put them on the island where they would be protected, but we are discouraged with the increase. It has not been as good as we had hoped. We are up now where the herd may increase much faster.
Delegate BARTLETT. That is 1,100,000 acres.
Senator CORDON. Do you know any use the State of Alaska would have for this island ?
Delegate BARTLETT. We would take it as a matter of course. I do not know any use the Federal Government has for it.
Mr. RHODE. Those are the only large ones, sir. We have some bird islands, small ones. I think we are unique among most of the agencies in Alaska in that we have given back a large acreage that we no longer needed, and we are recommending several more be turned back now.
They are generally in the category of small areas, such as the Curry Reserve; and we just gave back 5,000 acres in the vicinity of Fairbanks, where we originally had the musk ox before moving them to Nunivak.
We have some bird areas down along the southeastern Alaska coast that I think that we should remove from our jurisdiction. I have recommended that.
So they are really relatively small and I think they are generally areas which are isolated, rocky bird nesting areas off the shores.
Certainly, it is not very suitable for anything but that purpose.
Senator JACKSON. Do I understand that the Secretary has authority to relinquish an entire refuge area, or parts of a refuge area to be turned over to the Bureau of Land Management?
Mr. RHODE. I am sure he has.
Senator JACKSON. In other words, once an area has been set aside, he still has the authority to cut it back or eliminate it entirely.
Mr. RIEMER. That is correct; that authority is entirely in the Secretary of Interior now.
År. RHODE. Some presidential proclamation may be required, perhaps.
Senator JACKSON. I think it is important at least that that matter be checked. I do believe that there should be discretion in the hands of the Secretary to maybe turn back to the States some of the acreage area that is suitable for development, either farming or mining, or other pursuits.
Mr. RHODE. I would think that would be desirable and perhaps should be spelled out in the act to make it possible.
Senator JACKSON. It would not do any harm.
Mr. RHODE. So that at any time he could be persuaded to release land that was not needed for the Government; it would go to the State without further difficulty.
Senator CORDON. Of all the areas that you have there, and with respect to the particular types of wildlife that is sought to be protected, what do you deem to be the most important?
Mr. RHODE. În my own personal opinion, it would be the brown bear on Kodiak Island; next would be the Kenai National Moose Range.
Senator CORDON. And then a third one?
Mr. RHODE. The Aleutian Islands, for protection of sea-otter and migratory waterfowl. If the committee decides any of these areas must be reduced or boundaries adjusted, I hope the Service can be given an opportunity to protect the primary purpose of these areas.
Senator CORDON. You feel that with respect to both the Kodiak brown bear, and the moose herd in Kenai, that they are peculiar, and they are very apt to be exterminated or lessened to a very marked degree unless there is some type of protection given?
Mr. RHODE. I feel that very much, sir.
Senator CORDON. Of course as to the sea otter, they are included in the treaty we have?
Mr. RHODE. Yes, they are included in international treaty.
Senator CORDON. When you say the sea otter," you include the seal?
Mr. RHODE. They are protected in the same treaty.
Senator CORDON. Are there any other questions, gentlemen? We are most appreciative of you folks coming up here and we appreciate your frankness. We are simply trying to get a background here from which we can reach some conclusions as to what should be done with respect to, first, of course, providing financial stability to a new State; second, doing it with the least damage to the values that are in the area.
Or putting it another way, we seek to decide what might properly go to a new State and what, because of peculiar characteristics, should be left in the administration of the United States, at least for the time being, and not turned over at least at the opening or at the beginning of statehood.
Senator Jackson. There is one question I want to ask. What is the cost of administering these areas that would be left, as I understand by the terms of the bill, in the hands of the Fish and Wildlife Service, roughly? I do not want to pin you down exactly.
Mr. RHODE. It is in the neighborhood of $100,000 a year that we are presently spending there.
Senator JACKSON. For all of the refuge areas?
Mr. RHODE. I would like to make one more statement, sir. We have under proposal two areas which are migratory bird nesting areas out in the Hooper Bay area.
Senator CORDON. Would you mind pointing that out?
Mr. RHODE. That is this area, generally, right in here. It is a big treeless marsh area where a large percentage of your west coast ducks and geese come from. I cannot delineate exactly but it is about there. That is an area, I think, which should be set aside and the protection of that area guaranteed in order to maintain the west coast flyway of ducks and geese. I think it is important that it be done, and it is a national problem; it should remain in national ownership.
We have one other area which is a little different category. Here at Coldbay we have some eel grass beds that bring about the greatest concentration of geese in North America.
On their migration routes, which at present would be unprotected and it would be possible for concessionaires to go in there and kill them in great numbers, and that represents the flight of geese that come down the west coast, they go directly from there to the coast of Oregon. Sometimes we have as many as 2 million concentrated there at one time.
I had one more statement regarding the fishery. Senator Jackson brought up the point, and that is that
we are encountering every day in a greater measure the problem of offshore fishing, and its effect on the economy of the Territory, because those fish are headed for shore. That is not adequately protected at present, and it would not be adequately protected under this bill, because those fish can be intercepted offshore.
Senator CORDON. When you say "offshore," do you mean more than 3 miles
Mr. RHODE. More than 3 miles offshore.
Senator Jackson. Most of the fish caught today, as I understand it, Mr. Chairman, are caught within the 3-mile limit. There is the growing danger that they will move out beyond the 3-mile limit to catch the salmon. Am I right in that interpretation?
Most, or virtually all of the salmon caught today, are caught within the 3-mile limit. And your concern is that in the future that they will move outside the 3-mile limit over which you apparently have no control, or you are not directly in control of at this time.
Mr. RHODE. That is essentially correct; although, for instance, in Cook Inlet, the greatest portion of those fish are taken more than 3 miles offshore. And the question has already arisen as to whether or not we have jurisdiction, or whether the State would have jurisdiction. If not, of course, it is impossible to manage the fishery. They are caught out in the middle of the inlet.
Senator Cordon. Could you point that out on the map, please?
Mr. RHODE. The salmon come up in this river, the Kenai River, and they are taken by nets as much as 30 miles off shore, in this area out here. From one side to the other is 70 miles and in this area it must be close to 30 miles across here.
Senator CORDON. If we stake statehood and do not claim that as territory, I would be surprised.
Mr. RHODE. You could intercept most of the fish out in Bristol Bay out in here, and they will not designate it as a historic bay, and it is in that category now where jurisdiction is uncertain.
Senator CORDON. Who does not do it?
Mr. RHODE. I think the State Department must designate "historic bays."
Delegate BARTLETT. I can contribute this to the discussion
Senator CORDON. I think this is a lot more important so let us get at it.
Delegate BARTLETT. The Department of State in a communication to me, as of this year, or very late last year, expressed an unwillingness to designate Bristol Bay as a historic bay for reasons which they set forth at some length in their letter. And that statement was responsive to a request made by the Alaska Department of Fisheries, was it not, Mr. Rhode?
Mr. RHODE. Yes, we have requested them verbally, and unofficially, and the statement always comes back that our nationals often want to fish to within 3 miles of the shores of other countries. And, therefore, 3 miles is it.
Senator JACKSON. It is reciprocity.
Senator JACKSON. I put into the record the proclamation of 1945 on the administrative control of fisheries, out to the Continental Shelf. I do think that it is something that the committee should take a look at because it is my understanding that we made a unilateral claim to the area from the 3-mile limit out to the end of the shelf, insofar as the administration of the area for conservation purposes is concerned. I understand that the resolution or proclamation, rather, provides that a conservation area should be set up.
It is, also, my understanding that those conservation areas at least have not been set up off Alaska.
Delegate BARTLETT. Or nowhere else.
Senator JACKSON. I do not know about that, but I know it has never been done off Alaska. In order to implement the proclamation, they would have to have another proclamation, and set up conservation áreas.
Senator CORDON. At this time, I will offer, without objection, for the record a letter addressed to Chairman Butler from the Department of State, and signed by the Asssistant Secretary, dated January 20, 1954, where the State Department again reiterates its views with respect to there being established no limit beyond the 3-mile limit.
MY DEAR SENATOR BUTLER: Reference is made to your letter of January 13, 1954, enclosing a copy of a letter of the same date to the Secretary of Defense concerning jurisdiction of the Department of Defense in waters adjacent to the proposed State of Hawaii. Your letter requests any comments the Department may care to express.
You will recall the testimony of representatives of this Department on the bill which later became the Sunbmerged Lands Act and the Department's letter of March 4, 1953, to you concerning the same matter. As the Department indicated at that time, the traditional position of this Government from the time of Jefferson has been in favor of the so-called 3-mile limit as the breadth of territorial waters, and the maintence of this traditional position of the United States is considered vital at a time when a number of foreign states are attempting, by
unilateral action, to break down the principle of freedom of the seas by attempted extensions of sovereignty over areas of the high seas.
It was also pointed out that it is a time-honored principle of this Nation's concept of defense that the greater the freedom and range of its warships and aircraft, the better protected are its security interests and that, in adhering to the 3-mile limit, the United States does not preclude itself from taking all steps necessary to prevent or repel threats to its national security. In this connection, it is pertinent to add that on a number of occasions the United States has proclaimed maritime control over sea areas as necessary in the interest of national defense.
It is the Department's view, therefore, that limitation of the new State's boundaries to 3 miles from the coast would not only be consistent with the interests of this Government in its relations with other foreign states, but also with its own concepts of defense.
THRUSTON B. MORTON,
Assistant Secretary. Delegate BARTLETT. Would you like to have me submit for the use of the committee the letter I mentioned respecting designation by the State Department of Bristol Bay as a historic bay?
Senator CORDON. Yes; I think it might be helpful.
(The following letter and enclosures were later received for the record :)
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES,
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Washington, D. C., February 15, 1954. Hon. GUY CORDON :
United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR CORDON : During the meetings of your Subcommittee on Alaska Statehood, the proposition of declaring Bristol Bay as an historic bay was discussed. At that time I promised to bring to your attention correspondence of recent origin on that subject. Therefore, I take pleasure in sending you copy of my letter to Secretary Dulles dated December 4, 1953; copy of a letter addressed to Secretary Dulles November 24, 1953, by Director C. L. Anderson for the Alaska Fisheries Board; copy of the resolution adopted by the Board in connection with this matter; copy of a letter written me December 10, 1953, by Mr. Warren F. Looney, acting special assistant to the Under Secretary of State; copy of a letter dated December 9 to Director Anderson from Mr. Looney ; and copy of a study on this subject made by the Department of State.
It will be noted that Mr. Looney's letter to me, his letter to Director Anderson and the study itself are all marked “Restricted." *** Therefore, I respectfully suggest that these communications (from the State Department) not be made part of the printed hearings. Sincerely yours,
E. L. BARTLETT.
DECEMBER 4, 1953. Hon. John FOSTER DULLES,
Secretary of State, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. SECRETARY: Mr. C. L. Anderson, Director for the Alaska Fisheries Board, has furnished me with copy of the letter sent to you on November 24 and copy of the resolution adopted by the Board, both having to do with the proposal that Bristol Bay, Alaska, be declared an historic bay.
I desire to associate myself with the request that the feasibility of such declaration be explored just as soon as possible and do so without reservation. I believe the Board's recommendation is based upon sound reasoning and in accord with international law. This matter is of considerable consequences, and I should very much appreciate discussing it with you or any associates you might designate. Sincerely yours,
E. L. BARTLETT.