the other countries would withdraw equivalent concessions on products of importance to our export trade. For these reasons this Department is opposed to the enactment of S. 237 in its present form. The Department has been informed by the Bureau of the Budget that there is no objection to the submission of this report. Sincerely yours, Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, ROBERT C. HILL, Assistant Secretary (For the Secretary of State). DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: Reference is made to your request for a report on S. 237, a bill to regulate the interstate transportation of lobsters, and to define the term "lobster" for the purpose of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. We recommend that S. 237 be not enacted. Title I of the measure follows very closely the language of the act of Congress which deals with interstate shipment of fish (16 U. S. C., sec. 851) with one very important exception which will be noted later. That act provides for aid in certain respects by the Federal Government in the enforcement of State conservation laws and regulations concerning fish. Thus the conservation objectives of this measure could easily be obtained by the changing of the phrase "black bass or other fish" to "black bass, other fish or lobsters" in the statute referred to, together with a few minor additions. However, S. 237 contains another provision which would appear to have no relation to the conservation problem in this country, namely, the prohibition of importing into this country from foreign countries lobsters less than 36 inches long. This is obviously no conservation measure but has rather to do with restrictions on a class of foreign imports. It should therefore be the subject of a separate legislative proposal, the enforcement of which, if enacted, should be given to the executive agency generally charged with such duties. Although it is apparent that the portion of the measure which involves import restrictions is one that can be better answered by the agencies concerned with the country's foreign relations and tariff problems, it may not be amiss to bring to the attention of the committee the following excerpt from the President's letter of January 10 to the chairmen of the Senate Committee on Finance and the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives. It was there said: "As an aspect of national policy dedicated to fostering the security and economic growth of the United States, this Nation seeks to encourage in all feasible ways the continued expansion of benficial trade among the free nations of the world. In view of this policy I am, as I have said before, reluctant to impose a barrier to our trade with friendly nations unless such action is essential and clearly promising of positive, productive results to the benefit of the domestic industry in question." The nations which would be adversely affected by the enactment of S. 237 would be Canada, Mexico, Cuba, the West Indian possessions of Great Britain and France, South Africa, New Zealand, and Australia, which ship large quantities of lobsters to the United States. In addition, 15 other nations have exported minor quantities of lobsters and spiny lobsters to the United States. Our information is that the demand by the consuming public of the United States for lobsters, spiny lobsters, and closely related crustaceans cannot be filled by either the domestic production of lobsters (Homarus Americanus) or by the imports of these lobsters from Canada. United States production of these lobsters in 1954 totaled 271⁄2 million pounds, while imports from Canada the same year amounted to about 221⁄2 million pounds, both based on round or whole weight. The United States production of spiny lobsters that year totaled over 2 million pounds, round weight. Imports of spiny lobsters were nearly 20 million pounds, mainly of the tail segments. When converted to round weight so as to be comparable to the data on New England production and imports from Canada, the round weight of spiny-lobster imports would be equivalent to over 60 million pounds. Thus, the domestic production of Homarus Americanus can supply less than one-fourth of the demand in the United States. When domestic production and imports of cooked lobster meat are considered, it is found that the domestic production can supply less than 25 percent of the demand, which has been around 5 million pounds per year. Title II of S. 237 would require, for purposes of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, that the word "lobster" be applied only to that species of lobster found in the Atlantic waters contiguous to the North American coastline from the vicinity of Henley Harbor, Labrador, on the north, to the vicinity of Cape Hatteras, on the south. It also would prohibit inclusion of the words "in the common and usual name of similar species" or in connection wtih the designation of members of other families within the order, such as "rock lobster," "spiny lobster," or "red lobster." Taxonomically, both the American and the spiny lobster belong to the Order Decapoda, which group includes also the crabs, the shrimp and prawns, and the crayfish. This group is divided, however, so that the American lobster belongs to the family Homaridae (Nephrosidae), the spiny lobster to a separate family, Palinuridae. Again, the American lobster (family Homaridae) is a closer relative to the fresh-water crayfish (family Astacidae) than is the spiny lobster (family Palinuridae), since the first two species named are in the same subgroup or section (Astacura), while the latter is a separate section (Palinura). While the word "lobster" has been used for many years in connection with the designation of the crustacean known as spiny or rock lobster and in other designations of similar nature, the problem presented apparently has been recognized by both the Federal Trade Commission and the Food and Drug Administration. Thus, the regulations and announcements of both of these agencies have stipulated at various times as far back as 1915 that when the term "lobster" is used for other than the genus homarus it must be accompanied by a qualifying word such as "rock" or "spiny" in direct connection with that word and in type of equal size and prominence. Whether this type of differentiation is all that is needed to avoid any possibility of misleading the average consumer or whether title II of S. 237 is necessary to accomplish that purpose is somewhat difficult to determine. We have been advised by the Bureau of the Budget that there is no objection to the submission of this report to your committee. Sincerely yours, Ross LEFFLER, Assistant Secretary of the Interior. THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE, Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This letter is in reply to your request dated January 11, 1957, for the views of this Department with respect to S. 237, a bill to regulate the interstate transportation of lobsters, and to define the term "lobster" for the purpose of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. If enacted, S. 237 would restrict the use of the name "lobster" in commerce to that one species which is found in the Atlantic waters contiguous to the North American coast line from the vicinity of Henley Harbor, Labrador, to the vicinity of Cape Hatteras, N. C.; and it would prohibit the transportation from any foreign country to any State, Territory, or the District of Columbia of such lobster which is less than 3/16 inches long by certain measurements. The Department of Commerce recommends against enactment of this proposed legislation. In addition to the species of lobster referred to above, the name "lobster" in commerce has been applied to such widely used species as rock lobster and spiny lobster, which are found in other geographical areas. These have been traditionally marketed as "lobsters" for at least 60 years, and we know of no sound reason for legislation changing this nomenclature. The size limitation which this legislation would impose upon imports of lobsters would, we fear, place undesirable trade restrictions on lobsters imported from Canada, from whom we buy 20 to 23 million pounds annually. The probable annual domestic consumption of all types of lobsters is about 100 million pounds. The annual New England catch approaches 28 million pounds, or about 28 percent of total consumption. We do not consider it to be in our best interests to consider international and other trade restrictions against almost three-quarters of the supply for domestic consumption. We have been advised by the Bureau of the Budget that there would be no objection to the submission of this report to your committee. Sincerely yours, SINCLAIR WEEKS, Secretary of Commerce. (The following communications were subsequently received by the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce on S. 2719:) SEATTLE, WASH., July 21, 1958. Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, MEMBERS, SENATE INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE COMITTEE, United States Senate, Washington, D. C.: Years of effort by industry to secure recognition of need to control predator fish have so far met with disappointing treatment through lack of national support. Senator Magnuson's amended S. 2719 of July 18 to subsidize and encourage the harvest of dogfish sharks is of major importance to security of Pacific coast fisheries. Similar problems we are told appear on North Atlantic coast. Dogfish shark population increased 10 to 20 times number present when fished for market prior to low cost imports affecting market conditions. Estimated 200,000 tons dogfish infesting coastal and Puget Sound waters. Fishermen believe passage of amended S. 2719 a most important step to improve Pacific fisheries at this time. Canada also attempting to find ways to eradicate this menace. These predators easily consume 10 times their equal weight in food fish in 1 year. We are hoping to obtain additional support in next year's session of legislature to effect trapping program for these predators in inside waters after January 1959 Favorable consideration by your committee will be helpful to the entire foodfish industry. MILO MOORE, Director of Fisheries, State Department of Fisheries, Fishermen's SEATTLE, WASH., July 21, 1958. Senator WARREN G. MAGNUSON, MEMBERS OF SENATE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.: As the largest association of fishing vessel owners on the Pacific coast we urge the passage of the dogfish bill, S. 2719, as amended, July 18, 1958, by Senator Magnuson. At this particular time our vessels are plagued with one of the largest runs of dogfish we have encountered in years. The present conditions are intolerable to operations in the Cape Flattery area due to these ocean parasites. FISHERMEN'S COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION, BERT G. JOHNSON, Secretary. Senator WARREN G. MAGNUSON, NEAHBAY, WASH., August 18, 1957. Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR: Milo Moore was in Neahbay last week and gave me a copy of your proposed legislation on creditor control. I want to commend you for your proposal and assure you that you have the wholehearted support of the fishing fleet working in this area. We are presently making landings from over 450 Boats per week so this represents a goodly number of commercial fisherman. The dogfish situation has become so acute that on some grounds at times the boats have had to leave and seek new areas of fishing because it is impossible to land undamaged salmon once they are caught. It is very difficult to get bait or lures down through the dogfish without it getting fouled, but when they do get a fish it is all chewed up before it can be landed. Sometimes just the salmon heads are left on the hook. This year is by far the worst since the war. Yours sincerely, Senator WARREN G. MAGNUSON, SEATTLE, WASH., August 22, 1958. MEMBERS SENATE INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE COMMITTEE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.: We sincerely urge support Senator Magnuson's predatory control bill S. 2719 as amended July 18. This bill will help both Atlantic and Pacific coast fishermen by combating menace of predatory fish. T. H. FOTHERINGHAM TUBBS CORDAGE Co. SEATTLE, WASH., July 21, 1958. Senator WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.: We strongly support S. 2719 as amended by Senator Magnuson, July 18, 1958. The bill is of utmost importance to all segments of our fishing industry; we urge favorable consideration. GEO. JOHANSEN, Secretary-Treasurer, Alaska Fishermens Union. Senator WARREN G. MAGNUSON, SEATTLE, WASH., July 22, 1958. Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.: We strongly urge immediate favorable action by Congress of S. 2719, as amended. ASSOCIATION OF PACIFIC FISHERIES, By HERALD A. ONEILL, Executive Secretary. BY ERIC BULMER, President. PUGET SOUND SALMON CANNERS, LTD., By MEL HALGREN, President. Senator WARREN G. MAGNUSON, PORT TOWNSEND, WASH., August 9, 1957. Capitol Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: As a sportsman and businessman I wish to compliment you on the bill that you propose to establish bounties on predators which prey on our foodfish. I am in business in Port Townsend selling sporting goods and as a sportsman have had a good opportunity to see the effects of the dogfish on our supply of candlefish and small herring which our salmon in Puget Sound feed on. I do a lot of spin fishing for salmon from shore and in the evening just before dark I have seen the dogfish come in with their dorsal fins sticking out of the water in schools so long that you couldn't see the end of it. Gill netters tell me that when they make a set at night and run into a school of dogfish, it will ruin their nets and that is no small item in cost. The bounty on these fish will encourage commercial fishermen to take them, which will increase our foodfish and also sport fishing. We hope this sensible legislation will be acted on favorably. BERGSTROM'S ARMY-NAVY STORE, CHASE SEAFOOD COMPANY, Senator WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR: I wish to express my thanks to you for your work on the predator control bill and hope you will be able to see it successfully concluded. During the war, I was a commercial fisherman and vividly remember the dogfish stomachs filled with young crab, herring, and salmon. 29315-58--17 The policies of the Federal Government have left Washington fishermen in desperate circumstances and another cruel blow seems in the making at Geneva. The passage of your predator control bill would show the industry that it has not been completely abandoned and would help assure us all of better prospects in the near future. Yours truly, STEPHEN L. CHASE. ANACORTES, WASH., April 11, 1958. Senator WARREN MAGNUSON, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: As a commercial fisherman I wish to submit this letter in support of your measure-bill S. 2719. The commercial fishermen in this area are for bill S. 2917 100 percent and wish to compliment you on your efforts on our behalf. Thanking you again. Respectfully, PETER A. DRAGOVICH. Senator WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. JAMES FARRELL & Co., Seattle, Wash., April 2, 1958. DEAR MR. SENATOR: We wish to do everything possible to encourage you in your efforts to place a bounty on dogfish sharks, sea lions, hair seals, and lamprey eels. We believe that these predators are responsible for a heavy take of edible fish, and that their elimination would tend to ease the economical plight of those engaged in the fishing industries of the Pacific Northwest and Alaska. The industry is beset with many problems, such as the uncontrolled Japanese fishing for immature salmon in the Pacific Ocean and the importation of large quantities of competitive edible fish products. It seems to us that predator control is something we can deal with right here at home, and thereby better our position to some extent. We know that various methods of predator control have been proposed. However, the hunter system does not apply as far as the dogfish sharks and lamprey eels of the waters of the State of Washington are concerned. A special fishing effort must be devoted to reduce or eliminate these predators. Please let us know if we can give any assistance in this very worthwhile endeavor. Sincerely yours, WALTER C. HANSON. JONAS BROS. OF SEATTLE, INC., Seattle, Wash., April 17, 1958. Senator WARREN G. MAGNUSON, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: It has been called to our attention that Senate bill 2719 has received opposition and we are writing at this time to inform you that our firm will be behind you. We believe that every effort should be made to see that this bill is passed. We feel, too, that something should be done to continue the bounty on the sea lion and hair seal and to permit open season on fish ducks, etc. You can rest assured that we will support you on this matter and if we can be of any further help, please don't hesitate to let us know. Sincerely yours, BERT KLINEBURGER. Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. STEREO SALES CO., INC., Seattle, Wash., April 7, 1958. MY DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: Having read with concern Mr. Ross Leffler's opposition to S. 2719, designed to afford some relief against the many natural predators to our Pacific and Alaska fisheries, I am addressing this letter to you in support of your measure. |