U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

67–602CC u WASHINGTON : 2000

H.R. 3535, TO AMEND THE MAGNUSON-STEVENS

FISHERY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT

ACT TO ELIMINATE THE WASTEFUL AND UNSPORTSMANLIKE PRACTICE OF SHARK FINNING

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES CONSERVATION,

WILDLIFE AND OCEANS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

APRIL 13, 2000, WASHINGTON, DC

Serial No. 106–90

Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house

or

Committee address: http://www.house.gov/resources

(II)

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman

W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah

JIM SAXTON, New Jersey

ELTON GALLEGLY, California

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado

JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

KEN CALVERT, California

RICHARD W. POMBO, California

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming

HELEN CHENOWETH-HAGE, Idaho

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina

WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

KEVIN BRADY, Texas

JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania

RICK HILL, Montana

BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado

JIM GIBBONS, Nevada

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

GREG WALDEN, Oregon

DON SHERWOOD, Pennsylvania

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina

MIKE SIMPSON, Idaho

THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado

GEORGE MILLER, California

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota

DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American

Samoa

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas

OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey

CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California

CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO ́, Puerto

Rico

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island

ADAM SMITH, Washington

CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana

DONNA MC CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands

RON KIND, Wisconsin

JAY INSLEE, Washington

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California

TOM UDALL, New Mexico

MARK UDALL, Colorado

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York

RUSH D. HOLT, New Jersey

LLOYD A. JONES, Chief of Staff

ELIZABETH MEGGINSON, Chief Counsel

CHRISTINE KENNEDY, Chief Clerk/Administrator

JOHN LAWRENCE, Democratic Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES CONSERVATION, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS

JIM SAXTON, New Jersey, Chairman

W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

RICHARD W. POMBO, California

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina

MIKE SIMPSON, Idaho

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American

Samoa

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey

CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO ́, Puerto

Rico

ADAM SMITH, Washington

HARRY BURROUGHS, Staff Director

DAVE WHALEY, Legislative Staff

JEAN FLEMMA, Democratic Legislative Staff

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held April 13, 2000 ................................................................................... 1

Statement of Members:

Cunningham, Hon. Randy ‘‘Duke’’, a Representative in Congress from

the State of California .................................................................................. 6

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 9

Faleomavaega, Hon. Ini F., a Representative in Congress from American

Samoa, prepared statement of ..................................................................... 12

Pallone, Hon. Frank, a Representative in Congress from the State of

New Jersey, prepared statement of ............................................................. 4

Saxton, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the State of New

Jersey, prepared statement of ...................................................................... 2

Statement of Witnesses:

Aila, William, Harbor Master, Wai’anae Small Boat Harbor ....................... 53

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 55

Cook, James, Chairman, Western Pacific Regional Fisheries Management

Council ........................................................................................................... 21

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 24

O’Regan, Frederick M., President, International Fund for Animal Welfare ................................................................................................................. 43

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 46

Rosenberg, Andrew A., Deputy Assistant Administrator for Fisheries,

National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce ........................................ 14

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 17

(1)

HEARING ON: H.R. 3535, TO AMEND THE MAGNUSON-STEVENS FISHERY CONSERVATION

AND MANAGEMENT ACT TO ELIMINATE THE

WASTEFUL AND UNSPORTSMANLIKE PRACTICE OF SHARK FINNING

THURSDAY, APRIL 13, 2000

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES CONSERVATION, WILDLIFE

AND OCEANS,

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:05 a.m. in room

1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Jim Saxton (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Mr. SAXTON. The subcommittee will come to order. Today, we are

discussing H.R. 3535 to amend the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to eliminate the wasteful and unsportsmanlike practice of shark finning.

I would like to welcome our witnesses and thank those of you

who have travelled all the way from Hawaii for this hearing and

would also like to thank our witnesses who will be joining us via

videoteleconference from Honolulu. As members and witnesses are

aware, this subcommittee held a hearing on this same subject last

October.

While that hearing focussed on H.Con.Res. 189, which was a

non-binding sense-of-Congress resolution, the issues remain unchanged. As an original co-sponsor of H.R. 3535, the Shark-Finning

Prohibition Act, I continue to believe that the practice of shark finning is wrong. In addition, the practice of shark finning is inconsistent with the rules governing the harvest of sharks on the East

Coast, in the Gulf of Mexico and in the Caribbean.

I believe that Congress has the authority and the duty to take

action to prohibit this activity. I am pleased with the steps that the

Western Pacific Fishery Management Council has taken since we

last met on this issue. However, I believe the Council did not go

far enough.

This legislation is necessary since the practice of shark finning

continues today despite the Council’s actions. I appreciate the interest that has been shown in this issue and I look forward to hearing the testimony from our witnesses today.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Saxton follows:]

2

3

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Pallone, do you have an opening statement?

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing

on H.R. 3535 to eliminate the wasteful and unsportsmanlike practice of shark finning and to reduce the high mortality levels associated with shark finning in U.S. waters. I want to commend the

bill’s sponsor, Mr. Cunningham, for bringing this matter before the

subcommittee and I am also pleased to say that I am a co-sponsor

of the legislation and I think it is long overdue.

The practice of shark finning, the destructive practice of slicing

off a shark fin and discarding its carcass back into the ocean has

been banned since 1993 in all Federal waters except the Western

and Central Pacific. Today, a diverse group of commercial and recreational fishers, conservationists, Democrats and Republicans

have joined together in support of the bill finding this practice as

indefensible waste of a valuable natural resource, not to mention

the inhumane practice of sentencing a living creature to a slow and

painful death.

The fins of sharks are the primary ingredient in shark-fin soup.

The increasing popularity of shark-fin soup in Asia has increased

the practice of shark finning in the Western and Central Pacific

waters. In fact, in 1991, the percentage of sharks retained by the

longline fisheries for finning was approximately 3 percent but, by

1998, that percentage had grown to an astounding 60 percent.

As a result, more than 60,000 sharks were caught and killed in

the region, 98.7 percent of which are harvested only for their fins.

The National Marine Fisheries Service and the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration have both directed the

Western Pacific Fishery Management Council to stop shark finning

immediately but, nevertheless, as the Chairman mentioned, the

Council has—well, I should say I am going a little further, Mr.

Chairman, by saying that I think they have abdicated their responsibility to protect and promote the long-term health of this marine

resource and disregarded the policy directives.

Furthermore, the Council’s persistent support of finning stands

in direct contradiction to U.S. domestic and international sharkmanagement policies.

Finally, the unique biological characteristics of sharks, slow

growth rate, late sexual maturity and the production of few young

make them particularly vulnerable to overfishing and slow to recovery from depletion. This vulnerability coupled with the unequivocal history of unmanaged shark fisheries warrants expeditious passage of Mr. Cunningham’s bill as well as the particularly

cautious management approach.

I support an end to this wasteful destructive and biologically

risky practice and I am pleased that the chairman and the subcommittee are examining this problem. I hope we can work with

my colleague to pass this legislation and condemn the barbaric

practice of shark finning.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]

4

5

6

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you, Mr. Pallone. I ask unanimous consent

that all other subcommittee members, including the ranking members, be permitted to include their opening statement in the record

and, without objection, that will happen.

Let me just introduce our first witness and the person who has

worked so hard on this issue, Congressman Duke Cunningham, my

friend from San Diego. It would not be an overstatement to say

that Mr. Cunningham has bulldogged this issue for a long time and

that we would not be here having this discussion without him.

We want to thank you for that, Duke and we look forward to

your testimony. It is always good to hear from somebody who believes deeply in an issue and we know you believe deeply in this

one. So we are anxious to hear your testimony. You may proceed

at your convenience.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. RANDY ‘‘DUKE’’ CUNNINGHAM, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Pombo, Mr.

Pallone. I would like to thank the committee not only for hearing

this testimony, allowing this hearing, and also for the committee’s

support on this particular issue.

I would ask the committee to go back and review last year. I

know you would rather have Brooke Burns from Bay Watch than

Duke Cunningham’s testimony, but she is with child and could not

make the trip this year. But she gave one of the most professional

testimonies that I have ever heard last year. If you will go back

and review her testimony, I think it will give insight to anyone

that is opposed to this particular legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I am a scuba diver. I don’t necessarily like

sharks. Night before last, I watched a special about great whites

that were going up and hitting surfboards and they were doing research. They are dangerous. But, like all animals, whether it is a

lion or a tiger or a leopard, God put animals on this earth and we

need the conservation of those species.

That is why I am here today. I first introduced the Shark Finning Prohibition Act with the idea of following through with this

exact type of legislation. Mr. Chairman, last year, with your support, the House passed the Concurrent Resolution 189 which expressed the sense of the House that shark finning is a wasteful,

unsportsmanlike, destructive practice that should be banned.

As legislation before this committee today will accomplish that

goal and, again, I want to thank the members of this committee.

It is my intent not only to stop this wasteful practice in U.S. waters but down the line across the world. I think that when we have

waste of a species like this, there should be an international outrage.

Shark finning is the distasteful practice of removing a shark’s fin

and discarding the carcass into the sea. As an avid sportsman, I

love to hunt and fish but I believe in conservation based on good

science to preserve the species but yet to harvest older animals for

the purposes of food.

In my own particular case, I don’t hunt anything that I don’t eat.

I know other people may do it for sport, but I do not. I find this

7

practice of shark finning horrific and wasteful. I have worked with

this committee on a tuna-dolphin bill and saved turtles and bicatch

in species. The elephants in Africa; I think it is distasteful just to

kill an elephant for the ivory or a rhino just for its horn and leave

the carcass there.

For sharks, in U.S. waters, maybe we can stop that. But, again,

I think that when we have sound conservation, if we have a rogue

elephant, if we have one that is destructive or dangerous, then

there should be rules to guide that. But just the wanton destruction of a species or a particular part of its anatomy I think is

wrong.

At the hearing last October, this committee was told that shark

finning is occurring in U.S. Pacific and increasing at an alarming

rate. Unfortunately, this practice is not only continuing, it is accelerating. According to the National Marine Fishery Service, a scientific organization, in the Central and Western Pacific fisheries,

the number of sharks finned in 1992 was only about 2,289 blue

sharks.

Last year, fishermen in the Central and Western Pacific caught

a total of 78,091 blue sharks of which 58,268 were brought on

board, 57,286, which were finned, and only a shameful 982 were

retained.

If you asked me back in the 1700’s to stop buffalo hunting just

for the removal of the hide, I would support that. If you asked me

today to stop the wanton killing of seal pups for a barbaric practice

of just taking the hide of a seal pup, I think that is wrong.

Whether it is a rhino or an elephant or whatever, we must stand

forth, I think, not only as a country but as a nation and internationally to stop such practices. Between 1992 and 1999, the number of blue sharks finned in the Pacific rose by more than 2,500

percent. In 1999, the number of sharks retained whole was less

than 2 percent.

To stop this practice, the National Marine Fisheries has acted to

ban shark finning in all Federal waters of U.S. Atlantic, Gulf of

Mexico and Caribbean. However, the service has been unable to

convince the Western Pacific Region Fishery Management Council,

WestPac, to enact a similar ban. This leaves the sharks in the Central and Western Pacific Oceans as the only ones not protected

from this terrible practice.

NMFS has also written to the WestPac stating finning is wasteful and should be stopped. However, when given the opportunity to

act responsibly and stop finning, WestPac has repeatedly balked

and taken no action. Even after the House acted last fall by passing the resolution against shark finning, the WestPac Council has

not stopped the practice of finning and thumbed their nose at Congress.

Mr. Chairman, this legislation before the committee today will

establish one scientifically and environmentally sound and responsible standard for all of American fisheries.

This legislation sends a clear message that Congress does not tolerate the practice of shark finning and resulting waste in our national waters. Over the last 5 years, the United States has emerged

as a global leader in shark-fishery management. The Secretary of

State is a strong advocate for the coordinated management of

8

sharks and the elimination of shark finning in all the world’s waters.

Yet, even as our nation has been an international advocate for

banning shark finning, our inability to address finning in our own

waters threatens to undermine our legitimate leadership role.

Mr. Chairman, in summation, the Shark Finning Prohibition Act

has broad bipartisan support, Republicans, Democrats and Independents. It is strongly supported by Ocean Wildlife Campaign, a

coalition that includes the Center for Marine Conservation, National Autobahn Society, National Coalition of Marine Conservation, National Resources Defense Council, Wildlife Conservation

Society and the World Wildlife Fund.

In addition, it is supported by the State of Hawaii Office of Hawaiian Affairs, the American Sports Fishing Association and Recreational Fishing Alliance, the Sporting Association of California,

the Costeau Society, the Center for Marine Conservation and Western Pacific organizations.

Mr. Chairman, I want to close by quoting The Honorable Benjamin Cayetano, Governor of the State of Hawaii, who has written

that, ‘‘We should support an end to this wasteful, destructive and

biologically risky practice.’’

Mr. Chairman, I ask that you and the committee pass this important legislation, your prompt action to halt the rampant waste

resulting from the shark finning and solidify our national opposition to this terrible practice.

Thank you for holding this hearing. I ask that no amendments

be added to this legislation. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cunningham follows:]

9

10

11

Mr. SAXTON. Duke, we want to thank you for your hard work on

and dedication to this issue. It has been enjoyable to watch how

hard you have worked on this and we appreciate your testimony.

We have a vote on. We are voting on the Rule for the Budget

Conference Report. I am going to introduce the second panel and

then I think we will take a break, unless there are questions that

someone wants to ask of Mr. Cunningham.

We will proceed with the second panel as soon as we return

which will be in ten or fifteen minutes. Let me just introduce our

second panel before we go. We have Andy Rosenberg from NMFS.

We have Mr. James Cook who is Chairman of the Western Pacific

Fisheries Management Council who will come to us via satellite t.v.

We have Mr. Fred O’Regan, President of the International Fund

for Animal Welfare, another dedicated guy, and also Mr. William

Aila, Harbor Master of Wai’anae Small Boat Harbor.

If you folks would be ready in ten or fifteen minutes, we will go

and vote and come back and then we will proceed. Thank you very

much. We are in recess temporarily.

[Recess.]

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Faleomavaega has joined us. I would like to

offer him the opportunity to make whatever short and concise

opening statement he may have.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In the interest

of time, I know that I would like to look forward to hearing from

our witnesses this morning. I do have a statement I would like to

ask unanimous consent for submission as part of the record.

Basically, I would also express my appreciation to the gentleman

from California, Mr. Cunningham, for not only bringing this issue

before the members of the committee, the resolution that was

passed recently, expressing the sense of the Congress about the

practice of shark finning.

As you well know, Mr. Chairman, I do have some very serious

questions about the whole issue of the problems that we are faced

with as far as shark finning is concerned, the fact that it is totally

banned from Federal waters in the Atlantic Region as well as the

Gulf of Mexico, but that the practice continues in the Pacific Region.

I have some specific questions that I will be asking the members

of the panel at a later point. As you know, Mr. Chairman, I indicated earlier, when we had the hearing the last time about shark

finning—saying that shark finning is somewhat morally and culturally repugnant to our Western values.

I raised the same question, why are we eating horse meat at

some of the most expensive restaurants in our country. What part

of the horse is being discarded? Is that morally and culturally repugnant to our Western values? So there is a sense of a paradox

and maybe it might even be an indication of hypocrisy on our part.

If we are going to be banning shark finning, let’s do the same thing

for other food items that is somewhat repugnant to our values as

far as eating horse meat in some of the most expensive restaurants

in New York and other major cities in our country.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I would love to hear from our witnesses and see where this hearing is going to take us. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Faleomavaega follows:]

12

13

14

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you, Mr. Faleomavaega.

Mr. Gilchrist?

Mr. GILCHRIST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a brief comment.

I think it is important for all of us to accept to diversity of the traditions in the various cultures around the world and not place any

judgment on them. I think Mr. Faleomavaega’s comment is correct,

if one culture eats horse meat and another culture eats shark-fin

soup, I think that is something that we should have tolerance for

and mutual respect for.

But I think the issue here today is to discuss, with all the various interests of the diversities of the cultures of the world, the importance of managing the resources so that they can be sustained

for generations to come. If there was a problem with horses becoming extinct or overexploited, then we should ensure that the management of that stock is managed properly.

If there is a problem with sharks because they have dramatically

become popular around the world for their fins for various reasons,

then I think we should move in quickly, manage that resource the

way we would manage any other resource.

So whether it is shark finning or shark teeth or shark brain or

whatever it is, we should insure that sharks don’t become overexploited, threatened or endangered. So I look forward to the testimony, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you, Mr. Gilchrist.

We are going to hear first from Deputy Administrator for Fisheries, Dr. Andrew Rosenberg. Then we are going to hear from Frederick O’Regan of the International Fund for Animal Welfare. Then

we will hear from Mr. William Aila of the Wai’anae Small Boat

Harbor—oh; I’m sorry. We are also going to hear, direct from Hawaii, Mr. James Cook, Chairman of the Western Pacific Regional

Fishery Management Council. Sorry about that, Mr. Cook.

Dr. Rosenberg?

STATEMENTS OF ANDREW A. ROSENBERG, DEPUTY ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR FISHERIES, NATIONAL MARINE

FISHERIES SERVICE, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE; JAMES COOK, CHAIRMAN, WESTERN PACIFIC REGIONAL FISHERIES MANAGEMENT COUNCIL; FREDERICK M.

O’REGAN, PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL FUND FOR ANIMAL

WELFARE; WILLIAM AILA, HARBOR MASTER, WAI’ANAE

SMALL BOAT HARBOR

STATEMENT OF ANDREW ROSENBERG

Mr. ROSENBERG. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of

the subcommittee. I am Andrew Rosenberg. I am the Deputy Director of NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service and I would like

to thank you for inviting the agency to address you today on H.R.

3535, a bill to eliminate the practice of shark finning.

NOAA believes the practice of finning results in overfishing, undermines the conservation of vulnerable shark populations and is

wasteful. We have clearly stated our position in previous hearings,

in council meetings and in international negotiations connected

with shark management.

15

NOAA has taken a major step in achieving shark conservation

by prohibiting shark finning in the Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico and

Caribbean, as has been noted in some of the opening statements,

and on the Pacific Coast, most finning is prohibited by state landing rules.

The majority of shark finning by U.S. fishing vessels is currently

being conducted in the Central and Western Pacific. NOAA has

made our position clear in the Western Pacific Fisheries Management Council on the need to address the shark-finning issue for

U.S. waters in that region.

In addition, the United States is a leading proponent of international shark conservation in a variety of fishery management

fora. We have led the development in the food and agricultural organization of the U.N. of an international plan of action for the

conservation and management of sharks, and that plan of action

calls for individual nations to develop national plans of action that

prohibit wasteful fishing practices such as shark finning by requiring full utilization of all sharks harvested.

NOAA has developed a draft national plan of action pursuant to

the international plan for the conservation and management of

sharks and a final plan of action is expected out later this year. In

addition, we have just published a petition for rulemaking that

seeks to prohibit shark finning in Western Pacific Waters. That petition was presented by a coalition of a number of groups to the

Secretary.

A large proportion of the sharks harvested in the Central and

Western Pacific are blue sharks which are not considered desirable

as food because of the high urea content of the flesh that causes

the meat to spoil rapidly during storage.

We have limited data on blue-shark populations, as we have limited data on most shark populations in the Central and Western

Pacific. The available information indicates that blue sharks are

probably not currently overfished but, like all sharks species, they

are highly vulnerable to overfishing.

Other shark species are even more vulnerable than blue sharks

to overfishing because they have a very low reproductive rate, a

very long life span and a very high age of maturity. So, in spite

of the fact that blue sharks may not currently be overfished and

they are the primary species taken in the fishery, there are very

serious conservation concerns on the impacts of finning on both

blue sharks, ultimately leading to overfishing, or in other shark

populations that are even more vulnerable.

Because finning and storage of unprocessed fins can be accomplished at very low cost, and the product is of extremely high

value, there is a great propensity to overfish the resource.

NOAA data show that there has been a very dramatic 25-fold increase in the number of sharks killed in the Hawaii longline fishery from 1991 to 1998, and 98 percent of those sharks were killed

only for their fins. In 1998, we estimate that 60,000 sharks were

finned in the Hawaii longline fishery.

Foreign-flag vessels that capture and fin sharks in international

waters are prohibited from landing those fins in Hawaii. Consequently, many of these vessels transship shark fins to U.S. vessels that are allowed to land fins in Hawaii. In 1998, U.S. vessels

16

landed 120 metric tons of shark fins in Hawaii that had been

transshipped with a value of between $2.3 million and $2.6 million.

One issue that requires serious consideration is the imports of

processed shark fin from other countries that do not prevent finning. The issue is the practice of finning, not the use of shark fins.

Unilaterally prohibiting finning within U.S. waters while continuing to import processed fins does not necessarily fully solve the

problem.

While the bill strengthens U.S. shark conservation, the Administration feels it is important to address international shark conservation as well and we have been doing that in the international

fisheries fora. In fact, the Administration has taken this issue very

seriously and created a committee between NOAA and the International Trade Administration and the U.S. Trade Representative’s

Office to consider how we may further address international efforts

to prohibit the practice of shark finning.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, we very much welcome the attention that Congress has paid to this issue. The Administration looks

forward to consulting closely with you as you try to resolve both domestic and, potentially, the global aspects of shark finning.

We really appreciate your strong interest. That concludes my testimony. I would be happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rosenberg follows:]

17

18

19

20

21

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you very much, Dr. Rosenberg. I had intended to move into Mr. Cook’s testimony next. I am not sure if he

is available at this moment. Here he comes.

Thank you, Mr. Cook. We are anxious to hear your testimony as

well, sir. Thank you for the progress that you have provided on this

issue. We appreciate that very much and we are anxious to hear

your testimony.

STATEMENT OF JAMES COOK

Mr. COOK. Good morning, Chairman Saxon, committee members.

I am James Cook. I am the current Chair of the Western Pacific

Fishery Management Council. The Western Pacific Council has authority over the fisheries in the Federal waters surrounding the

U.S. Pacific islands, which comprise 48 percent of the U.S. exclusive economic zone.

The Council has adopted measures to restrict Hawaii’s longline

fleet to a one-shark-per-trip limit for all non-blue shark species

(they are to be landed whole) and a 50,000 annual quota for blue

sharks to be adjusted periodically.

The Council encourages the committee to support regionally

based fisheries management through the Council process and to insure that the Magnuson-Stevens Act amendments reflect the full

sweep of national standards for fisheries conservation and management including scientifically based management, allowance for

variations amongst fisheries and the importance of fishery resources to fishery communities.

The mortality levels of sharks in the Western Pacific Region

where finning is allowed in both Federal and state waters is onetenth the level of the East Coast and the Gulf of Mexico where finning is not allowed in Federal waters and most state waters.

In the Western Pacific Region, the blue shark accounts for the

majority of sharks caught and makes up 95 percent of the Hawaii

longline shark catch. The minimum stock size of the North Pacific

blue sharks are estimated by Nakano and Wataname in 1991 to be

between 52 million and 67 million sharks. The blue shark has a

demonstrated ability to withstand sustained fishing pressure.

The Regional Fisheries Management Councils are integral to the

fisheries federalism ordained by the 1976 Fisheries Conservation

and Management Act. The John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics and the Environment noted ‘‘The formation of the Regional

Fishery Management Council system under the 1976 FCMA is

viewed by many as the most beneficial and important innovation

in fisheries management.’’

During the past twenty-four years, the Western Pacific Council

has continually lead the way on many conservation issues. The current status of stocks in the Western Pacific Region attests to the

Council’s good track record. The Center for Marine Conservation,

in its publication, ‘‘Missing the Boat,’’ praised the Western Pacific

Council on several accounts.

The Western Pacific Council has approached the issue of shark

conservation and management with the same innovation, attention

to detail and integrity to the council process as it has demonstrated

in addressing other issues.

22

While the National Marine Fisheries Service position is that the

removal of the fins of a shark and discarding the carcass at sea is

wasteful practice, NMFS has said it prefers to work through the

council process and has no desire to undermine council authority.

An amendment to the Magnuson-Stevens Act that would define

‘‘waste’’ would help and it is preferred to actions that selectively restrict one fishery while allowing other fisheries with similar waste

associated with them to continue.

Better observer coverage on fishing vessels would also help with

shark conservation and management and other fishery issues. Current observer coverage indicates that 98 percent of the sharks that

are finned by the Hawaii longline fleet are done so after they are

dead.

The proposed listing of shark finning as an unlawful act for all

U.S. Federal waters lumps all shark species and shark fisheries together and distracts the more important shark conservation and

management issues such as needed population assessments and

international agreements on shark fisheries.

The Council asks the committee to maintain the regional approach to fisheries management. Committee members, like Mr.

Aila, my Hawaiian lineage precedes the white man’s first contact

with Hawaii. My father was born in Hilo, on the Island of Hawaii.

My mother was born to Waimea on Kauai.

I learned my fishing from my uncle in Kona where I spent all

the summers of my youth. I have been involved in commercial fishing all of my adult life. Different cultures have different beliefs

about fishing and the sea. The Western Pacific Region has tremendous cultural diversity and the Magnuson-Stevens Act gives the

flexibility and process to rulemaking which has made our fisheries

the success it is.

With me this morning are council members and representatives

from the Western Pacific Council areas. They are asking me, What

do you know about the region? Why are you seeking to subvert this

process in setting mandates 8,000 miles across the ocean to an

ocean and a people you don’t really know? What do you know about

Guam? Do you know the Samoan culture? Did you know that the

Port of Guam lands nearly $100 million worth of fish annually,

making it the fourth most important U.S. port?

Did you know shark fins are a big business there? Did you know

that, in the Northern Mariana Islands, Council Advisory Panel

Members have asked for technical assistance to develop targeted

shark fisheries? What do you know about American Samoa besides

the Honorable Eni Faleomavaega? Did any of you know that commercial fishing directly employs 30 percent of the population, that

the Port of Pago Pago lands $232 million worth of fish annually

making it the most important U.S. port in value of landings, but

that only $1 million was landed by American Samoan fisheries,

that this council has effected a limited-entry program and proposed

an area closure to large vessels designed to foster the growth of Samoan fisheries so that the proud people of Samoa can harvest their

own resources?

You should understand this is a special-interest issue brought to

you by well-funded NGO’s. You know the record of this council. You

have seen the active and proactive and precautionary management

23

on sharks. Please help us conserve the Magnuson-Stevens Act and

give Pacific Islanders a continuing voice in controlling their own resources.

Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cook follows:]

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Cook, thank you very much.

We are now going to move to Mr. O’Regan.

STATEMENT OF FREDERICK M. O’REGAN

Mr. O’REGAN. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Faleomavaega, thank you very

much. I am Fred O’Regan. I am the President of the International

Fund for Animal Welfare and I am very pleased to be here today

and to lend our strong support to H.R. 3535.

IFAW, to those of you who may not know us, is a global nonprofit

animal welfare and conservation organization. We have offices in

twelve countries, in Europe, North America, Asia and Africa with

our headquarters in Massachusetts, on Cape Cod.

We, as a matter of policy, do not solicit or accept government

funds so that we have don’t have prejudiced positions on policy.

We, instead, rely on the generous support of our 2 million members

worldwide who promote our balanced animal-welfare and conservation policies that advance the well-being of both animals and people.

The focus of our work, especially in marine activities, has largely

been on scientific research and policy development in International

Trade in Endangered Species, CITES, and the International Whaling Commission. This work is critical to wildlife conservation and

animal welfare, but it is often not front-page news.

For example, IFWA scientists and policy advisors have provided

the foundation for the International Whaling Commission’s current

moratorium on commercial whaling and the creation of the internationally recognized Southern Ocean Sanctuary in the waters

around Antarctica.

We are both a campaigning organization and one that directly

supports conservation and animal-welfare organizations around the

world. We spend over $12 million a year in, for example, expanding

parks and habitat for African elephants as well as working with

both governments and non-governmental communities worldwide.

Our latest success, as I think some people know, is in organizing

an international campaign to save Laguna San Ignacio, the last

pristine breeding grounds for Pacific Grey Whales in Mexico.

I have just returned from Mexico City, actually, and, for the

record, Mr. Chairman, would like to, again, give our sincere thanks

both to President Cedillo, to Secretary Carabias and to the

Mitsubishi Corporation for saving this pristine wilderness habitat

forever.

In this country, we are providing ongoing financial and scientific

support with NMFS, with the Coast Guard and a variety of research institutions to save the highly endangered Northern Right

Whale.

Mr. Chairman, the issue before us today we feel is extremely important. Shark finning is a cruel and wasteful practice that is

threatening the world’s shark populations. It must be stopped not

just in U.S. waters but around the globe. I think that is somewhat

the value that IFAW brings to this discussion.

Finning is growing at an alarming rate. I don’t have to, I think,

repeat, many of the statistics that have already come forward but,

in a practical way, which is our way, we are working, for example,

through our office in Beijing, in a cooperative program with the

44

government of China and practitioners of traditional Chinese medicine around the world, including in the U.S., to find ways to manage the steadily growing demand for shark fins and cartilage in

traditional medicine.

We are also, now, supporting efforts by the governments of the

U.K. and South Africa for the first time to put basking sharks and

great white sharks on Appendage I of endangered species in

CITES.

In fact, we have a team right now in CITES and I know there

are several members of the committee and staff in Nairobi as well.

But even if all of these efforts are successful, they are not going

to be enough to safeguard the future of the world’s populations for

sharks. As we know, globally, many shark populations are in serious decline. They are large. They are slow-growing, with relatively

low reproductive rates.

The United Nations, through FAO’s International Plan for Action

and Conservation of the Management of Sharks has begun addressing this. Although this plan calls for full utilization of sharks and

the elimination of waste, the key thing is that it is a voluntary

plan.

With this in mind, IFAW believes there are three distinct issues

that should be addressed in the Shark Finning Prohibition Act.

First, we believe the bill should prohibit shark fishing by all U.S.

fishermen on all vessels and in all fisheries under the jurisdiction

of the United States.

We believe this is the intent of 3535 and would encourage you

to insure that U.S. fishermen and vessels are covered when fishing

on the high seas or in foreign waters not withstanding any other

agreement or law that might preclude enforcement of a finning prohibition. Ending wasteful finning by U.S. fishermen alone will not,

of course, end this practice. We know that U.S. fishermen account

for only 2 percent of shark finning in the Central and Western

Ocean.

However, and I think this is critical, the U.S. does serve as an

important conduit in the shark-fin trade. In the Pacific, foreign

fleets transship or land approximately 180 metric tons of shark fins

annually through U.S. ports and vessels.

With this in mind, Mr. Chairman, our second point is that the

legislation you are developing we hope can be expanded to stop the

traffic of fins through U.S. ports by prohibiting the transshipment

of fins taken by shark finning. We believe that the Magnuson Act

should be amended to insure U.S. ports and vessels are not used

to subvert your efforts to end shark finning and would suggest that

Section 307(1)(J)—and excuse me if there is a typo in some of the

original drafts of this that said 301(J); it is actually 307(1)(J)—

could serve as a model for that provision.

If you will recall, Section 307(1)(J) makes it unlawful for any person to ship, transport, offer or sell or purchase in interstate or foreign commerce any live lobster that does not conform to certain

conservation measures outlined in the statute.

The critical thing here is obviously we are not comparing lobsters

and sharks. What we do see is a precedent and a regulatory mechanism which we think could be seen as a model for how to put a

45

regulatory and enforcement regime behind your efforts to end

shark finning.

Mr. Chairman, I would also say that IFAW would be pleased to

work with you and your staff in further developing this provision

to stop transshipment of shark fins.

Our third and final point is that any shark finning around the

world will necessarily involve international efforts and require U.S.

leadership. The bill before you, we believe, should be amended to

include the views of Congress and how this should be accomplished. IFAW believes that the successful efforts and the precedent of the United States in ending large-scale driftnet fishing can

serve as a very useful model.

As you recall, the first step for the U.S. in achieving prohibition

was the practice of ending it in our own waters. This increased the

strength and credibility of our negotiators. In 1987, Congress

passed the Driftnet Impact Monitoring Assessment and Control

Act. In addition, to preventing U.S. fishermen from engaging in

large-scale driftnet fishing, directed the Department of State to undertake certain deliberate actions to achieve an international ban.

These efforts involve diplomatic initiatives at the United Nations, regional fishery management bodies in world capitals. We, at

IFAW, believe achieving an international ban on shark finning will

involve a similar effort and similar mandates should be included in

the bill.

Attached to my testimony is some suggested legislative language

concerning international negotiations and reporting. I would ask

you to take a look at it. We know that an international ban will

not happen right away, but we also know that much can be accomplished if your committee and the Congress act immediately to

begin this process. The precedent is there. We have been successful

with this in the past. We believe it can be done again.

Finally, while prohibiting shark finning internationally is a critical step in protecting the world shark populations, it is not the

only step that must be taken. As we all know, regional national

management bodies must adopt shark conservation measures to

prevent overfishing and adopt a precautionary approach for species

about which we have little or no information.

Again, low-productivity species of sharks should receive special

attention and critical habitats must be protected and important biological and fishery management data must be assessed to improve

our understanding of sharks.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would like to, again, thank you for

inviting me here and I would simply like to say that I mean it

when I say it that IFAW and other NGO’s are perfectly willing, on

an international basis, to try to move this forward in any way that

we can.

So we remain at your disposal and we congratulate you on your

leadership in this initiative.

Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. O’Regan follows:]

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you very much, Mr. O’Regan.

Mr. Aila?

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM J. AILA

Mr. AILA. Aloha, Mr. Chairman and honorable members of this

subcommittee. Aloha, Representative Abercrombie. Palofa, Representative Faleomavaega.

My name is William Aila. I am here to testify before you today

as a native Hawaiian fisherman. I am from the District of Wai’anae

which lies about thirty miles west of Honolulu on the Island of

Oahu.

I have served on the WestPac’s Fisheries Pelagic Advisory Panel

for over eleven years and served as a Co-Chair for the panel for

two terms. I would like to thank Chairman Saxton and members

of the subcommittee for the invitation to offer testimony on this

very important bill.Very importantly, my ancestors are honored,

my family is honored and I am humbly honored to be here.

I would like to thank Representative Cunningham, ‘‘Duke,’’ as he

introduced himself to me a few minutes ago, and his colleagues for

having the courage and vision to introduce this bill.

I am pleased to announce that on Wednesday, April 5, the Hawaii State Senate Committee on Water, Land and Hawaiian Affairs

unanimously passed House Bill 1947. This bill would ban the landing of shark fins in Hawaii unless the shark is landed whole. I am

proud to say that the Chairperson of the Senate Water Land and

Hawaiian Affairs Committee, Colleen Hanabusa, represents my

very own district in Wai’anae.

I humbly request the committee’s forgiveness of any breaches of

Washington protocol that I may be unaware of as this is my first

time testifying and I must tell you, I am very nervous at this point.

Mr. SAXTON. It doesn’t show. You are doing very well.

Mr. AILA. I will restrict my comments to shark-finning concerns

within the Western Pacific Region and under the auspices of the

Reauthorized Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act.

The Magnuson-Stevens Act sets out three primary criteria for

Regional Management Fisheries Councils to base its fisheries-management plans or FMPs on. The WestPac, in its February 2000

meeting in Honolulu, has chosen, in my opinion, to ignore at least

one criteria and to belittle the other two.

In its proposed shark FMP, WestPac would authorize the finning

of 50,000 blue sharks per year wasting over 95 percent of that resource. How WestPac could have justified this proposal on any criterion other than greed mystifies me.

FMPs are supposed to be based on the following criteria; biological. WestPac relied on National Marine Fishery Service analysis of

Japanese logbook data. However, the Japanese fleet represents

only about 30 percent of the total effort in the Pacific. They failed

to obtain or consider data from the South Koreans, Taiwanese, Chinese and Russian fleets. Basing a scientific model on a foundation

of only 30 percent of the total information is a recipe for failure.

Economic; estimated income from shark finning to Hawaii-based

longline fishermen range from ‘‘beer money,’’ as described to me a

few years ago by James Cook, the current Chairman of WestPac,

54

to about $2500 per crew member per year or about 11 percent of

the estimated annual wage.

‘‘Estimated’’ needs to be emphasized here because no one knows

for sure how much revenue is generated from shark-fin sales. Sales

are conducted in cash and generally treated as unreported income.

As such, tax revenue is not realized by either the state or Federal

Governments.

Allowing the finning of sharks and the outright waste of shark

resources for what amounts to a little more than beer money is terrible and an unacceptable waste, and violates the spirit of the Magnuson-Stevens Act which requires a reduction in waste.

Social, which is the third criterion; social aspects include cultural

practices and beliefs both past and present and, in the case of Hawaiian’s, WestPac, at the direction of its Chairman Cook, completely ignored Hawaiian cultural practices and values and chose

not to wait until a requested cultural study was completed.

WestPac proceeded with its shark FMP despite pleas from native

Hawaiian fisherman to consider the social impacts. Hawaiians consider the taking of sharks for only their fins as wasteful and offensive. We encourage full utilization or no utilization.

Individual sharks of many species known to Hawaiians including

blue sharks served and continue to serve as family guardians. My

grandfathers and great grandfathers cared for certain sharks, our

family Aumakua. Kamohoali’i is the name of the shark that I

malama, or care for.

The relationship is that of a grandchild to a grandparent. The relationship doesn’t end when that grandparent dies. The values, the

lessons and respect never diminish. The need for advice continues.

How many times, in your life, have you thought back to the words

of your grandfather or grandmother for guidance in troublesome

times or while contemplating important decisions.

The answer is, we all have. How would you feel if someone were

to sever that connection between you and your grandparent. How

would you feel if someone were to kill one of your grandparents

just for ‘‘beer money?’’ The thought turns and twists at my intestines or, as we refer to it in Hawaii, as our na’au. This is exactly

how I feel about my Aumakua and the thought of shark finning offends me.

I urge the committee, and later the full House, and, hopefully,

the Senate, to pass this bill and end this wasteful, offensive and

unnecessary practice. My culture, your culture and the precautionary policies within the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act demands it.

I would just like to say mahalo for the opportunity to present

this testimony and I am very honored that I was invited to speak.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Aila follows:]

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Aila. Before we go into

the question and answer session, let me welcome back the gentleman from Hawaii, Mr. Abercrombie, who has joined us. I understand that it is necessary for me to ask unanimous consent that he

be permitted to sit on the panel as much as he is no longer a member of the panel. We want to welcome you back.

Do you have anything that you would like to say at this time in

terms of a statement?

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Not at this point, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you very much.

Let me begin the questioning with—we have heard from a number of folks who are knowledgeable about the subject of shark finning including Mr. Cook and Mr. Aila and Mr. O’Regan and Dr.

Rosenberg, as well. Also, we have heard from the State Senate in

the State of Hawaii who, apparently, have passed a state bill which

is similar in nature to this bill.

I guess I would just like to begin by asking each of the panel

members their specific thoughts on this bill in as much as there is

some difference of opinion. This bill, in some people’s view, doesn’t

go far enough. In other people’s view, it goes too far.

If you would just each take about a minute or a minute and a

half to give us your position specifically on this piece of legislation

and, if you had your druthers, how you might like it amended or

changed.

Dr. Rosenberg?

Mr. ROSENBERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With regard to this

piece of legislation, we support a ban on the practice of shark finning for U.S. fishermen. A remaining concern is how this deals

with the international-trade issues. I believe Mr. O’Regan referred

to some of the possible means that might be used to consider those

trade issues.

We, as I noted in my testimony, have asked our International

Trade Administration and the U.S. Trade representative to consider the issue further. We do feel it is important to develop either

administratively or by other means some measures to deal with the

trade issue.

So I guess we would fall into the category of feeling that the bill

is strong and appropriate but there may be some other issues that

need additional attention. I can’t, at this stage, tell you whether I

think they need to be included in this bill or whether there are

other means of dealing with some of the trade concerns.

Mr. SAXTON. Would you support the action of this subcommittee

if we chose to move this bill forward as it is written?

Mr. ROSENBERG. Yes.

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you.

Mr. Cook?

Mr. COOK. I think that the bill, as it is currently written, is misdirected. The most important issue having to do with sharks on a

worldwide basis is shark management and conservation. This council, as you know, has done its job in putting in conservation limits.

When you look at the situation that exists around the continental

United States where the shark mortality is ten times what it is

here in our region, I think that what you have to understand is

simply to come up and make the Western Pacific and other areas

64

of the world comply with the example of the United States and its

coastal waters, you can see that is a real problem.

We would hope that the bill would be killed.

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you.

Mr. O’Regan?

Mr. O’REGAN. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I think that I deal with

some specifics in my testimony. But I would certainly support the

bill as currently drafted. We think that in one sense, though, what

the bill really does is simply sort of close the final loop on the

United States implementing its already international agreements.

We have signed on to the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries and the FAO International Plan of Action for Sharks. In both

of those, really, it is incumbent, as I think we all know, to lower

waste, to try to stop mortality of the bicatch.

So I think that, by WestPac being essentially sort of the odd man

out here, that this bill would close that loophole. I think for all of

us, as Dr. Rosenberg has said too, the international trade aspects

of this loom large. It is only 2 percent. We see this as a starting

point but, again, I would emphasize the precedence that is there

both in the Magnuson Act as well as in the driftnet provisions in

which the United States led such a role.

The one thing I would add is that I think that the ongoing talks

on straddling stocks agreement is probably a good basis for negotiations to start with. There are many international fora but we

think that the bill really starts us down that road.

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you.

Mr. Aila?

Mr. AILA. Thank you, Chairman Saxton. I would like to start off

by saying, first of all, I would highly recommend that you pass this

bill further on and add two more points, one being that this bill

brings some consistency to national policy. The U.S. must lead by

example.

There are efforts going on in the international arena to do the

same thing or to bring waste under control. So the U.S. must lead

by example. The passing of this bill would accomplish that.

Thank you.

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you, sir.

Mr. Faleomavaega?

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think I would

be remiss if I do not express my personal aloha to Mr. Aila. I want

him to know that a special aloha from a graduate of Kahuku High

School to an alumni of Wai’anae High School. I want him to feel

very much at home. Although I am wearing a monkey suit that I

have to do every day as part of the job, my preference, really,

would be an aloha shirt——

Mr. SAXTON. What does that make the rest of us who wear those

things?

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I look at Mr. Cook. He looks so comfortable

wearing an aloha shirt and feeling very comfortable and I have to

wear a tie that chokes me up every day.

I want Mr. Aila to feel very comfortable, that I have ohana there

at Wai’anea and I would like for him to please express my fondness

and aloha to my good mother, Mama Aggie Cope. She hanaed me

65

and my brother Kamaki Kanahalae. Please express to them my

love and aloha.

So, brother, no feel bad. You home.

Mr. AILA. Thank you.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. That was English, by the way, Mr. Chairman, in its highest form.

But I would like to ask some questions to Dr. Rosenberg, my

good friend, from NOAA. This is not an indictment of WestPac, Mr.

Cook, I just wanted to get some data and facts understood for the

record. The problem, as least as it has been expressed by some of

the proponents of the bill, to the extent that provisions of the bill

do not go far enough in controlling shark finning. If you want to

kill a shark, you have to bring the whole body to the shore and

then it is OK to continue killing, shark finning?

Is that an acceptable concept with the Administration, which the

bill provides, or allows?

Mr. ROSENBERG. Yes; it is acceptable. The reason for that is because it removes that propensity to overharvest or overexploit that

I referred to before as well as reducing waste. But the primary

issue here is not to promote a future overharvest.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I have also received some reports from

WestPac under Mr. Cook’s Chairmanship that WestPac has been

very, very highly critical of the National Marine Fisheries Service

for their being uncooperative and that, for the past three or 4

years, WestPac has been asking the National Marine Fisheries

Service for a comprehensive study, research and report on this

whole question of shark finning and its current practice.

It is my understanding that there will be a report forthcoming

next month comprehensive enough to add the concerns of the members of the committee and everybody that is concerned about shark

finning.

Dr. Rosenberg, will you be comfortable enough with this report

that is supposed to be coming up next month that it will answer

a lot of the questions and concerns that we have on this issue?

Mr. ROSENBERG. First of all, I would say that we have provided

previous information, a number of contract reports and so on, to

WestPac as all the members of the committee know and everyone

involved in the fishery management process knows, we all would

like to have better data on every issue at all points in time.

So we always make decisions with less than perfect information.

We often make decisions with rather skant information. So I think

it is important to realize we have provided information over a period of time with the research that we have available to WestPac

on this issue.

The new report, I think, will add to that information. Will it answer all questions? That is difficult for me to say. I hope it will address many of the issues that have been raised, but whether questions have been answered to satisfaction I think might lie in the

eyes of the beholder.

So, again, I think that we will be providing additional information that will be important to WestPac. I believe we have sufficient

information on the table to move forward with this part of the

needed shark conservation measures.

66

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. How long has the National Marine Fisheries

Service taken to come up with this report coming up next month?

Has this been a 2-year study, a 3-year study? How comprehensive

has it been for them to do this?

Mr. ROSENBERG. Just one moment; if I could just check with my

colleagues. The report that you are referring to is an updated assessment of blue sharks that has been conducted over the last several years, two to 3 years, trying to put together additional data,

not just the Japanese logbook data that was referred to before.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. So, in effect, your report, really, and then

under the auspices of WestPac as well, we are talking only about

blue sharks.

Mr. ROSENBERG. Primarily blue sharks; yes.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. But totally absent is data on other varieties

of sharks that are also being killed or for purposes of shark finning;

am I correct on this?

Mr. ROSENBERG. Congressman, I believe that there is some other

information on other sharks from observer logs and from landing

reports and so on. However, we do not have an assessment for the

other shock stocks. In other words, we do not have a full analysis

of how that relates to how heavily exploited those sharks populations are. But there is some other data; yes.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. So, basically, you are saying we still have

problems with data and fact information on the issue.

Mr. ROSENBERG. Absolutely.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. That is the same claim also that WestPac

makes for all this time, that there is a lack of evidence and data

on this issue so let’s continue giving a quota of 50,000 sharks that

can be used for finning for blue sharks. It seems to address only

the issue with Hawaii’s problem, but it doesn’t really address the

problems also in other insular areas.

Mr. ROSENBERG. There has been a report, of course, of the level

of landings and the economic impacts in other areas that we discussed at last year’s hearing.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. So, in effect, there is absolutely no data—

I shouldn’t say absolutely, but there is really a tremendous lack of

information on this issue for American Samoa as well as Guam and

as well as the Northern Marianas.

Mr. ROSENBERG. There is much less data for those other areas.

That is certainly correct. Again, I would indicate that we believe,

to deal with the issue of shark finning, though, there is sufficient

information although we, of course, would like to have better information to better manage sharks overall.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. As a matter of our national policy and for

the sake of consistency, the fact that we ban shark finning in the

Atlantic Region for purposes of—what was the reason for sharks

being killed in Europe? Do they also eat shark-fin soup in Europe

so much, or among the Atlantic countries, as to why we put a ban

on shark finning in this region?

Mr. ROSENBERG. I believe it was for the export market as well,

also exported to Asia.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. So, for all these years, we have put a slap

on the councils and everybody in the Atlantic Coast Region but we

have never done it until now for the Pacific Region.

67

Mr. ROSENBERG. Congressman, there is a difference in the way

that the management plans are developed for highly migratory species on the Atlantic Coast. Those measures are developed directly

by the Secretary, not through the council process, although it is in

consultation with the councils.

For the Western Pacific, the management measures for other migratory species are developed through the council process directly.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. So, basically, as part of our national policy,

we are saying no more shark finning in the Atlantic because shark

finning has been such a lucrative practice, it all goes to the Asian

soup markets in Hong Kong and all those given areas.

So now we are moving to the Pacific and putting the same pressure and requirements. This does not prevent these ships from continuing to conduct shark finning operations in international waters.

Mr. ROSENBERG. That is not quite correct. I believe if they are

licensed to fish in the Hawaii longline fishery, then they are required to abide by the provisions of the plan wherever they fish.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. No; my point is, obviously, the intent of this

legislation, you cannot do it anymore if this bill passes within Federal jurisdiction, EEZ zone, if you want to call it, but outside of our

EEZ zones, these vessels can still conduct shark finning operations

on waters that we have no jurisdiction over. Am I correct?

Mr. ROSENBERG. U.S. vessels may not. Foreign vessels may.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Can still do it? This is what I meant.

Mr. ROSENBERG. Yes, and, in my testimony, I referred to our concerns about international trade and international protections.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. So as a signor to the United Nations Code

of Conduct for responsible fisheries, which the U.S. is a party to,

are we perceiving shark finning similar to the same issue as killing

of whales that the Japanese do on a quota basis, also some countries in Europe, I think Norway or one of countries? Is this the

same move that our country, as part of its national policy, to put

better restrictions on the killing of whales as well as sharks?

Mr. ROSENBERG. Congressman, I would say it is not quite the

same. The U.S. position on whaling is a bit different, that we don’t

believe that whaling is appropriate practice except for use of indigenous peoples. In this case, we are talking about a management

measure. We are not suggesting that it is inappropriate to ever

harvest sharks but this method leads to overharvest because it is

a very high-value product at very low cost.

It is the same is leading to poaching of elephant ivory, I believe,

was referred to in Congressman’s Cunningham’s testimony. Because it is worth so much money, it very quickly leads to overharvest.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Would the Administration be supportive of

an added provision in the bill that there is to be no importation of

shark fins coming from any vessel, whether it is U.S. or foreign,

into U.S. markets?

Mr. ROSENBERG. I can’t fully answer that. I can say that the Administration is supportive of developing provisions that would deal

with importation so that U.S. fishermen are operating on an equal

footing with foreign fishermen but I am not sure if I could be definitive with the language as you cited it.

68

So, going in that direction, yes; we would be supportive of it. But

the details need to be worked out and that is why I referred to a

committee——

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. My concern is that we are making loop holes

in something that we are trying to cure, and yet, at the same time,

continuing to allow the foreign fishing industry to take shark fins

as if nothing is happening. So we are putting restrictions on our

fishing industry but absolutely nothing against foreign vessels that

may want to bring in shark finning, like to Hawaii, for shipment.

To me, I am against that.

Mr. ROSENBERG. Yes; and we are supportive of dealing with that

loophole. The specific way you phrased it, I think I would have to

consult with the trade people to know if that is best way to do it.

But, yes, we are supportive of making sure that people are operating on an equal footing and that we do everything we can to encourage international constrictions.

Mr. SAXTON. If the gentleman will yield——

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I will wait until the

next round.

Mr. SAXTON. We are in the process of putting in conceptual form

some further legislation on this subject.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I look forward to working with the gentleman in refining those provisions and the language in the proposal.

Mr. SAXTON. I am with you. Thank you.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I know that my time is up

but I would like to ask for another round after this.

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you.

Mr. Gilchrist?

Mr. GILCHRIST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Rosenberg, or

anybody else that wants to answer this question, sort of a big-picture question dealing, certainly, with shark finning but dealing

with the fisheries, in general. Mr. Rosenberg, you could probably

look up, I would imagine, in an almanac, the population of the

world at the turn of the last century, 1900.

I would guess that it is unlikely that you could look up in an almanac the population of various fish stocks in the Year 1900. The

population of the planet has increased. I don’t know what it was

in 1900. Maybe it was 2 billion, 3 billion. It has probably doubled

in the last hundred years.

Is there a corresponding increase to the fisheries in that same

given time?

Mr. ROSENBERG. Congressman, I am not sure I will get the numbers quite right but my understanding is that the world population

has doubled in the last forty years so, by that standard, I think the

population around the turn of the century would be at or less than

2 billion.

The world fish catch plateaued at around 100 million metric tons

several years ago. Around the turn of the century, it may have

been about two-thirds of that, roughly, since I am doing this from

memory, I apologize if I get the figures wrong, but has remained

at about 100 million metric tons and is not anticipated to increase,

or even have the capacity to increase, really, beyond that level even

69

if overharvested stocks were rebuilt and those that are currently

underharvested were fully exploited.

There is not very much scope for change in the overall world fish

catch. So, in answer, we have plateaued, but the world human population has certainly not plateaued yet. I hope that addresses your

question.

Mr. GILCHRIST. It does. Thank you very much. So the importance

of managing nationally and internationally this fragile industry is

of paramount importance.

Mr. Cook, you mentioned, and I was looking for it in your testimony but I couldn’t find it, that fewer sharks are killed in the

Western Pacific where there is shark finning than there are killed

in the Atlantic or East Coast where shark finning has been

banned.

I am not sure if I understand that. You are saying, with shark

finning, you actually have fewer sharks killed and where shark finning is banned, you have more sharks killed. Did I say that accurately?

Mr. COOK. I believe that the Atlantic and Gulf Coast of the U.S.

Economic Zone, the shark mortality there is approximately ten

times what it is in the zone of the Western Pacific although the

zone of the Western Pacific is three times as large as that area.

Those fisheries in which sharks have the greatest problems are

directed fisheries. As Mr. Rosenberg knows, there are many overfished shark fisheries in your area. There are none in our area.

That is all I was trying to point out is that the shark mortality

which this council has a very, very clear focus on, is much higher

in the waters where shark finning is banned on the East Coast and

the Gulf Coast than it is here in the Pacific.

Mr. GILCHRIST. Can you comment on that, Mr. Rosenberg?

Mr. ROSENBERG. Yes, sir. The two comments I would have is,

first of all, it is quite correct to say that there are a number of

shark stocks that are overfished on the Atlantic Coast and in the

Gulf Coast. I am not sure it is correct to say that there are no

sharks stocks that are overharvested in the Pacific.

I think it is correct to say that we don’t know, although there are

grave concerns about a number of shark stocks in the Pacific, but

we don’t have comprehensive information. The fact that they are

fully assessed does not mean that they are not overharvested.

The second thing is, if I understood Chairman Cook’s comparison

of the mortality rates, I don’t think that that comparison is terribly

meaningful. I think he spoke in terms of the total level of harvest,

but what you would need to do is compare for specific species how

the current rate of harvest relates to their ability to sustain that

harvest, and that is going to vary by species.

So the figures he is citing, from a scientific perspective, were not

terribly meaningful to me.

Mr. GILCHRIST. It sounds like there was a rationale for the continued practice of shark finning.

Mr. ROSENBERG. I also don’t understand that point. Shark finning, again, like with any other practice that is very low cost for

an extremely high-valued product, has a propensity to overharvest

and there is no question that that propensity is being shown by the

dramatic increase in shark finning.

70

There is no evidence that the increase in shark finning is leveling off. It would seem to me fairly straightforward that, if we continue to increase the practice because the price is not dropping,

that we will, ultimately, end up with severe problems in the Western Pacific and Central Pacific and, as this committee has noted to

the agency several times, can’t we address these problems before

they occur as opposed to trying to scramble after they occur.

Mr. GILCHRIST. Thank you.

Are we going to have another round, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. SAXTON. My intention is to have another round, if we can do

it quickly. The Chairman has another panel to attend at 1 o’clock,

so if we can finish up in a half hour. I will pass on my next turn

and go to Mr. Faleomavaega and then back to the other members.

Mr. Abercrombie?

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I will

try to move rapidly.

Mr. Rosenberg, I don’t know if you had an opportunity to look

at or review Mr. Cook’s testimony, but one of the interesting points

to me, and I think it relates to these other questions—I will just

read it to you so you don’t have to search for it.

‘‘The National Marine Fisheries Service has contracted a study

on the cultural significance of sharks in the U.S. Pacific Islands

and is working with Japan’s National Research Institute, the Far

Seas Fisheries, on a population assessment of blue sharks in the

North Pacific. Both studies are expected to be completed by June.’’

Are you familiar with that project?

Mr. ROSENBERG. I am, although not in the details.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. That is OK. Do you think it will be done by

June?

Mr. ROSENBERG. Yes, sir; I do. But I can check on that and report back.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Another point. This may seem like it is a generalized issue beyond this immediate hearing, but I think it is important for what WestPac does. By the way, I want to say for the

record that I think WestPac has an extraordinary record, an excellent record, with respect to not only sensitivity and concern but

taking action with respect to fisheries.

There may be a lot of controversy over this particular issue, but

I don’t want to see that detract from the overall record that

WestPac has. I think WestPac has accomplished that in the face of

not having quite the same amount of funding as others.

What is your control, your relationship to the priorities for

Saltonstall-Kennedy projects?

Mr. ROSENBERG. Saltonstall-Kennedy projects are developed

through an independent review panel that makes recommendations

overall on projects on technical merit as well as on industry merit.

There are two separate panels. There was a scientific panel as well

as an industry-based panel to make recommendations to us on a

priority listing order.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. That being the case, maybe you have had

more trouble in the Atlantic than you have had in the Pacific which

may speak well of WestPac. But in the process, then, possibly because you haven’t seen the necessity for more projects in WestPac,

would you agree that WestPac wanted to have a Saltonstall-KenVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:18 Jan 02, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 J:\67602.TXT HRESOUR2 PsN: HRESOUR2
71

nedy project for blue-shark utilization in the Pacific that wasn’t

funded and that, for all intents and purposes, WestPac, on a continuing basis, gets a relatively low amount of funding or finds itself

in low priority with respect to Saltonstall-Kennedy funding for this

project or any other.

Mr. ROSENBERG. No, sir; I would not agree with that statement

although it is quite true that that project was not funded. Again,

it was rated by a technology panel and then by an industry panel

and did not rate well compared to other projects as opposed to the

priority of the issue. It is the technical merit of the projects and

we tend not to change the priority ordering based on technical

merit as well as industry-based——

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, if I could ask unanimous

consent if it is all right with the gentleman from Hawaii. We have

some of the students here who are looking for seats, if it is all right

if they can come and sit on the lower part of the dias.

Mr. SAXTON. Yes; we welcome you. There are, as Mr.

Faleomavaega suggested, seats up here if there are not enough

back there.

Mr. ROSENBERG. Mr. Chairman, for the record, I would be

pleased to answer the questions from the students, too, since they

have been sitting out there.

Mr. SAXTON. If we had the time, we would be happy to have it,

I assure you.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. You can understand, then, that it is a little

disconcerting for Westpac to find itself in a position of having to

make more definitive statements, scientifically or otherwise, but

not necessarily having funding, then, for the studies that were supposed to give them the opportunity to make those statements.

That said, then, and I accept your point, by the way, of overharvesting. I am quite familiar with the elephant situation in Africa

and what was done to try and alleviate that, that if you have a

high-priced byproduct, if you will, that there is a tendency, then,

for unscrupulous people to want to take advantage of that and to

heck with the consequences.

But, as Mr. Aila has pointed out, and I think Mr. Cook has pointed out and I think all of you have taken the position, including in

your testimony that other countries—we can go through with this

bill, but other countries may, in fact, even do transshipment. Mr.

Aila has raised that point as well, the transshipment.

I am a little distressed that there is not a more positive statement from you with respect to what we might do in that regard.

For example, you say, in your testimony, ‘‘The Administration has

already taken up this serious issue with a standing committee between NOAA and the International Trade Administration working

to craft a solution.’’

Would that include sanctions because I will tell you, the reason

I am asking that question to you, Mr. Rosenberg, and addressing

the Chairman specifically on the bill, if we are going to do this, and

this seems to be the trend, we are going to have the finning practice, I don’t want the United States out there saying, ‘‘Oh, well; we

have taken a very principled and moral position,’’ pat ourselves on

the back and then march blindly off into the sunset.

72

I don’t see any reason why we should deal with countries who

are going to do something that we find reprehensible, illegal or any

combination that you want to put on it.

Why couldn’t we put sanctions into this bill? Why should we deal

with countries? Why should we import any fish products of any

kind of they are going to do this?

Mr. ROSENBERG. Congressman, I apologize if my statement was

not clear. We agree that this is a serious issue that needs to be addressed. There have been a number of suggestions for how to address the issue including that made by Mr. O’Regan, and we have

some other examples such as the shrimp-turtle situation where we

require importation of that product from other countries to meet

the same standards that we have imposed on our fishermen. A

similar situation exist for tuna-dolphin and driftnetting.

So we do have many examples. However, trade issues are very

complicated and not my area of expertise. I am a fisheries scientist.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. OK. Then I will put it on the record for you

to take back that this has to be—I think we should have sanctions

involved in this. I know people are reluctant to do it, but I am even

more reluctant to get into a situation where we take the high

ground and then leave everybody else to scramble around in the

trenches and do as they wish.

Mr. SAXTON. May I just say to the gentleman, we would like to

have one more round and if you could——

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I will end with that.

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you very much.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I would like another round.

Mr. SAXTON. Let me just say that the last round, we will have

to observe the 5-minute rule as we have got about twenty minutes

left before the witching hour of 1 o’clock.

Mr. Faleomavaega?

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to

second or complement also the concerns that have been expressed

earlier with my good friend from the State of Hawaii, Congressman

Abercrombie. That is exactly where I am coming from. If we are

going to be serious about controlling shark finning not only operations within our own jurisdictional waters, what does this say

about what other foreign countries are doing about this very same

thing.

I would like to ask Dr. Rosenberg, approximately what is the

total dollar value of shark finning operations that we have worldwide? Is this a $3 billion industry or we are looking at—I know it

is about $100 for a little shark-fin soup in Tokyo. I know that for

sure.

It is probably the most expensive soup there is in any Chinese

restaurant, if you ever go to Tokyo or even in Hawaii. I don’t know

how it is in Hawaii. Maybe Neil can——

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I have never had it.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. You have never had shark-fin soup? It is delicious. I have to confess that. I’m sorry.

Mr. ROSENBERG. I can’t give you a worldwide figure just because

I can’t multiply that fast. We are about 2 to 3 percent of the trade

and roughly $3 million, but we don’t have worldwide figures.

73

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. As they say in Hawaii, that is just chicken

scratch. I would like to request that some more comparable data

be provided on this very question, total dollar value of the sharkfinning industry that we have worldwide.

Obviously, it is not just going to the U.S. restaurants but predominantly goes to Tokyo and other major Asian cities. Mr. Cook,

State Senator Colleen Hanabusa, in her proposed bill to ban shark

finning in the State of Hawaii, has some interesting findings and

I wanted to ask if Westpac agrees with some of the allegations or

findings that are stated in Senator Hanabusa’s bill, one saying that

100,000 sharks are taken each year by Hawaii’s base longliners,

that data from log books and observers indicate that 86 percent of

the shark are alive when brought to the boat and are killed just

for their fins. Approximately 60 percent are then finned. That

means, once caught, the fins are removed and the carcasses are

discarded, that the fins are landed in Hawaii as unreported,

untaxed catch.

Another concern is an additional 150 metric tons of shark fins

are taken elsewhere in the Pacific and are then transshipped unreported and untaxed through the state. Do you agree with the statements on this State bill, Mr. Cook?

Mr. COOK. I think relative to the amounts of sharks that are

taken, relative to the amounts of shark that are transshipped, I do

agree. I totally disagree that this is unreported catch. I think that

the National Marine Fisheries Service should be aware that the

Hawaii log-book program, or the Hawaii longliners specifically documents the amount of sharks taken, the amount of sharks finned,

the state of Hawaii catch reports that demand that fishermen fill

out the amount of sharks that are finned and taken in the fishery

and, further, there are transshipment requirements including a

permit that very carefully document the amount of fins transshipped through.

The issue of unreported income is totally false. We report everything.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. So you are saying that what Senator

Hanabusa is claiming here is way out of context, no evidence or

data to back those statistics?

Mr. COOK. I have no problem with the numbers that Ms.

Hanabusa uses. I simply have a problem with the thought that it

is unreported. This is highly reported, highly regulated, activity.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. The notion that the shark has a very strong

cultural value not only among my Hawaiian cousins but also

among all the Polynesians. I wanted to ask if Westpac has seriously considered the concerns that were expressed earlier by Mr.

Aila that sharks are not just for the purposes of eating, that there

are a lot more serious cultural considerations not only among the

native Hawaiians, but also other Polynesians.

Has Westpac taken that into consideration?

Mr. COOK. Indeed, we have. As you know, Westpac has a study

that is progress on the cultural significance of sharks. Mr. Aila,

and others, should be happy Westpac is proactive already at this

time in asking that only one brown shark per trip be landed, and

that only 50,000 blue sharks be taken.

74

At a recent shark conference put on by Mr. Aila’s organization

in Waikiki, one of Hawaii’s foremost authorities on Hawaiian culture stated that the blue shark, which makes up 97 percent of our

fisheries, is not aumakua to the Hawaiians.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I am sad to say that my

time is up and I know at least I would like to give the courtesy

to Mr. Aila to respond to Mr. Cook’s comments on this issue and

I sincerely hope that our subcommittee will focus more specifically

on this very, very important issue as far as I am concerned.

Mr. Chairman, is it all right if Mr. Aila can at least respond to

Mr. Cook?

Mr. SAXTON. Yes; if you could do it briefly, sir, I would appreciate

it.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. AILA. Thank you, gentlemen. I will try to address that briefly. With regards to the reported income and the report of data of

the sharks taken, the State of Hawaii catch report only added the

shark fin total last year, so there is no data as far as the Hawaii

State data.

The National Marine Fisheries catch report is one that has not

covered finning until very recently, either. So that is in response

to that. There is a lot of unreported income and I beg to differ with

Chairman Cook regarding the reported income to Hawaii.

With reference to the study, the cultural study, I need to be polite but I also need to be very forceful in telling the truth that we

Hawaiian fishermen shamed the Council and the National Marine

Fisheries Service into conducting that report and that report is

what we call in Hawaiian a manini report. It is a very small report,

not very comprehensive. It was rushed through only because they

failed to act on our request the first time.

I would like to take this opportunity to address Representative

Gilchrist’s question earlier. As far as a big-picture answer——

Mr. SAXTON. I am really going to have to ask you to--if you can

do it in fifteen seconds because we are going to have a vote now

at 1 o’clock, I understand.

Mr. GILCHRIST. If you will wait, Mr. Aila, I will ask you to respond to that big picture when I have my 5 minutes.

Mr. SAXTON. Let me recognize the gentleman from the Eastern

Shore.

Mr. GILCHRIST. I yield to the gentleman from Hawaii.

Mr. AILA. Mahalo. The big-picture answer to your question is we

are all just trustees of this resource and we are managing it for the

generations that have yet to be born. So that is the approach that

needs to be taken with regards to not only shark finning but any

marine resource management.

Thank you.

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you, sir.

Mr. GILCHRIST. Mr. Aila, in your testimony which I will read in

part, ‘‘Westpac relied on NMFS analysis of Japanese logbook data.

Although the Japanese fleet represents only 30 percent of the total

effort in the Pacific, it failed to recognize data from South Korean,

Taiwanese, Chinese and Russian fleets. Basing scientific models on

a foundation of only 30 percent of the total information is a recipe

for failure.’’

75

Dr. Rosenberg, can you respond to that?

Mr. ROSENBERG. Yes; I can although, again, I didn’t do the analysis so I can’t talk about it in detail. We had available to us, because of our interaction with the FarSeas Fisheries Agency in

Japan their data. We did not have available to us more comprehensive data from other countries.

It depends on what conclusions you are trying to draw from that

data as to whether you can appropriately do so or not. The fact

that it is 30 percent of the fishery, again, depends on whether you

are trying to evaluate what the total catch is and you know something about the relationship with the other fleets or not.

So it is a rather more complicated question, sir.

Mr. GILCHRIST. Can I ask, Mr. Cook—I wasn’t able to hold on to

these figures throughout the testimony that was given—the shark

finning has increased by a fairly large amount over the last 10

years, twenty years?

Mr. COOK. It has increased, in fact, by a large amount over the

last 9 years.

Mr. GILCHRIST. What is the value of shark finning today economically, just a figure?

Mr. COOK. Approximately $1.5 million.

Mr. GILCHRIST. What was it 10 years ago?

Mr. COOK. Almost nothing.

Mr. GILCHRIST. What did people do 10 years ago if they didn’t

catch shark fins? What was their fishery like? What did they catch?

What did they do?

Mr. COOK. Probably most of the sharks that were brought to the

boat were released.

Mr. GILCHRIST. But they were after something else. They made

money some other way?

Mr. COOK. That’s correct. The catch in the longline fisheries were

tuna and swordfish.

Mr. GILCHRIST. So shark finning is, and anybody can answer

this, a recent phenomenon? Suppose I started a rumor that tomato

soup cured arthritis and was an aphrodisiac. Would that replace

shark finning?

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. That is not a rumor, you know.

[Laughter.]

Mr. GILCHRIST. Oh; it’s not a rumor? The gentleman from Hawaii

says that is not a rumor.

[Laughter.]

Is this because of the demand?

Mr. COOK. What I am saying is that you need to understand that

what drives shark finning on a worldwide basis as well as in the

Hawaii longline fishery is the dramatic increase in the price of

shark finning. That is what has made it so attractive to people

around the world.

Mr. GILCHRIST. So, in some areas of the world, eating shark-fin

soup has been a tradition for thousands of years?

Mr. COOK. That’s correct.

Mr. GILCHRIST. But it is not a tradition in Hawaii or the other

islands in the Pacific, Mr. Aila?

Mr. COOK. It is a tradition in Hawaii. Very much so. We have

a very large ethnic population here that consumes a large amount

76

of shark fins, but nothing compared to the State of California

which is the largest importer of shark fins.

Mr. GILCHRIST. Thank you, Mr. Cook.

Mr. Aila, can you respond to that?

Mr. AILA. There is a small population of Chinese and Japanese

in Hawaii that utilize shark-fin soup. The majority of the population does not eat shark-fin soup. In fact, what is driving the increase in fins is as the East Asian market becomes more affluent,

more people can afford it, and that is what is driving the market.

Mr. GILCHRIST. Thank you.

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you.

Mr. Abercrombie?

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, just

very quickly for those students who came in, they may be a little

confused. The voice you hear of Mr. Cook is coming by satellite.

Congress is not totally backward in how it operates, so we are dealing in real time. That box that is speaking there actually is not the

box, it is a real person.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Will the gentleman yield just for 5 seconds?

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Sure.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I would just like to recognize the presence

of our closeup students who come all the way from American

Samoa. We are very honored to to have them here and I hope they

are getting an education to see what the legislative process is really about here in the Congress.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and the gentleman from Hawaii.

Mr. SAXTON. You came at just the right time. I hope you folks

brought some kava for us. After this hearing, we are going to need

it.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Never mind that. We are looking for tomato

soup, now.

[Laughter.]

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. If the gentleman will yield, I am going to request that the students will provide the Chairman and the members an a capella song that they have learned, if that is all right,

after the hearing.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Yes; and I will make this even quicker. Mr.

Cook, I appreciate your testimony. Particularly, I want to focus a

little bit on your conclusions very quickly, if I can.

You point out in your conclusions that the question of waste is

put forward with regard to the blue-shark situation right now, but

the question of waste is far broader than that. Do you have some

recommendations—you don’t need to go into them in detail, but

could we ask for recommendations from you with respect to the

other kinds of target catches and waste problem. Do you see that

as something that needs to be addressed by us as well?

Mr. COOK. Yes; I do. I think you know that the last time that

we were in session with this group, you asked Andy Rosenberg

from National Marine Fisheries Service for a definition of waste.

There is very, very significant waste in other fisheries in the country.

In Alaska, there is tremendous waste in the chum salmon fishery. There is waste in many roe fisheries throughout the country.

To single out the Hawaiian longline fishery, the waste that occurs

77

with shark finning, is only one bit of waste in very, very many fisheries with similar problems.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Thank you. You heard my questions about the

underfunding. I would like you to submit, if you can, to the Chairman those areas where you think that Westpac could usefully benefit and, by extension, the information to be gained to benefit not

only the fisheries there but our task here. If you would forward to

us those things that you feel have been underfunded, I think it

would be useful to us. Could you do that?

Mr. COOK. Yes; I can.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. The last point, then. There has been some argument about whether the sharks are landed, and I think this has

a great deal to do with the finning because I think some of the people who are not involved in it, actually—that is to say, doing the

fishing—they find it offensive that a fish would be brought on

board and then the fin hacked off and then the remaining part put

back in the sea.

You say, in your testimony, that most of the sharks—in fact, 98

percent of the sharks—that are finned are done to those who are

dead when they get on board. Yet, there was testimony, I believe,

that had the opposite conclusion.

Can you tell me definitively what is the ratio here? Are the

sharks alive when they brought on board or are they dead when

they are brought on board and finned because, if they are dead and

finned, that is an entirely different proposition from simply harvesting them, hacking off the fins and throwing them back in the

water.

Mr. COOK. The sharks are handled in exactly the same manner

as the rest of the catch is handled. The animal is brought on board

and is killed very quickly and efficiently, normally by severing its

spinal cord. After the animal is dead, the shark fins are removed.

Anybody who has ever dealt with a shark, it is perfectly logical

that they are killed before the fins are removed.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you, Mr. Abercrombie. Right on time. I

thank the witnesses for their insight and the members for their

questions. The members of the subcommittee may have some additional questions for the witnesses and we will ask you to respond

in writing. The hearing record will remain open for thirty days for

those responses.

If there is no other business, the Chairman again thanks the

members of the subcommittee and our witnesses. The subcommittee stands adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 12:55 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]