[Pages H11154-H11159]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING SHARK FINNING

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the
concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 189) expressing the sense of the
Congress regarding the wasteful and unsportsmanlike practice known as
shark finning, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:

H. Con. Res. 189

Whereas shark finning is the practice of removing the fins
of a shark and dumping its carcass back into the ocean;
Whereas demand for shark fins is driving dramatic increases
in shark fishing and mortality around the world;
Whereas the life history characteristics of sharks,
including slow growth, late sexual maturity, and the
production of few young, make them particularly vulnerable to
overfishing and necessitate careful management of shark
fisheries;
Whereas shark finning is not prohibited in the waters of
the Pacific Ocean in which fisheries are managed by the
Federal Government;
Whereas according to the National Marine Fisheries Service,
the number of sharks killed in Central Pacific Ocean and
Western Pacific Ocean fisheries rose from 2,289 in 1991 to
60,857 in 1998, an increase of over 2,500 percent, and
continues to rise unabated;
Whereas of the 60,857 sharks landed in Central Pacific
Ocean and Western Pacific Ocean fisheries in 1998, 98.7
percent, or 60,085, were killed for their fins;
Whereas shark fins comprise only between 1 percent and 5
percent of the weight of a shark, and shark finning results
in the unconscionable waste of 95 percent to 99 percent (by
weight) of a valuable public resource;
Whereas the National Marine Fisheries Service has stated
that shark finning is wasteful, should be stopped, and is
contrary to United States fisheries conservation and
management policies;
Whereas shark finning is prohibited in the United States
exclusive economic zone of the Atlantic Ocean, the Gulf of
Mexico, and the Caribbean;
Whereas the practice of shark finning in the waters of the
United States in the Pacific Ocean is inconsistent with the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the
Federal Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Tunas,
Swordfish, and Sharks, and the shark finning prohibitions
that apply in State waters in the Atlantic Ocean and Pacific
Ocean;
Whereas the United States is a global leader in shark
management, and the practice of shark finning in the waters
of the United States in the Pacific Ocean is inconsistent
with United States international obligations, including the
Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing of the Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, the
International Plan of Action for Sharks of such organization,
and the United Nation's Agreement on Straddling Stocks and
Highly Migratory Species; and
Whereas establishment of a prohibition on the practice of
shark finning in the Central Pacific Ocean and Western
Pacific Ocean would result in the immediate reduction of
waste and could reduce shark mortality by as much as 85
percent: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that--
(1) the practice of removing the fins of a shark and
dumping its carcass back into the ocean, commonly referred to
as shark finning, is a wasteful and unsportsmanlike practice
that could lead to overfishing of shark resources;
(2) all Federal and State agencies and other management
entities that have jurisdiction over fisheries in waters of
the United States where the practice of shark finning is not
prohibited should promptly and permanently end that practice
in those waters; and
(3) the Secretary of State should continue to strongly
advocate for the coordinated management of sharks and the
eventual elimination of shark finning in all other waters.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Saxton) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Vento) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton).

General Leave

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous material on H. Con. Res. 189.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New Jersey?
There was no objection.
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, H. Con. Res. 189, authored by my friend the gentleman
from California (Mr. Cunningham), expresses the sense of Congress that
the practice of shark finning is wasteful and unsportsmanlike. In
addition, it calls on the Western Pacific Regional Fisheries Management
Council, the National Marine Fisheries Service and the State Department
to take action to

[[Page H11155]]

ban the practice in U.S. waters and to work for a global ban on the
practice.
The issue that we are talking about here, shark finning, may not be
one that is familiar to all Members. I would just like to say a word
about what this is, because, as the gentleman from California (Mr.
Cunningham) so well points out in H. Con. Res. 189, it is a practice
which I believe would be tasteless, at best, and perhaps many other
things at worst.
It is very simply this: Catching, through the process that we
generally refer to as long lining, sharks, in this case in the western
Pacific Ocean, bringing them alongside the boat and removing with a
knife their fins, and then turning them loose to die. That is shark
finning.
Members of this House will remember that in the last reauthorization
of the Magnuson Fisheries Conservation and Management Act, now known as
the Magnuson-Stevens Act, we added a new standard with the goal of
reducing bycatch; that is, catching fish other than the targeted
species in a fishery.
In the meantime, shark finning has been discouraged and made illegal
in the Atlantic Ocean, in the Caribbean and in the Gulf of Mexico,
leaving only the American waters in the Pacific Northwest in our
country where shark finning is permitted. The Magnuson-Stevens Act
requires Fishery Management Councils to develop fishery management
plans which are consistent with national standards, and I believe that
a national standard has been set by outlawing this practice in the
Atlantic, the Caribbean and the Gulf of Mexico.
The new national standard requires Councils to develop fishery
management plans which minimize bycatch to the extent practicable, and
to the extent that bycatch cannot be reduced, the mortality of such
bycatch should be reduced.
The practice of shark finning appears not only to encourage the
retention of bycatch, but also encourages the mortality of the bycatch.
In fact, information from the National Marine Fisheries Service
suggests that while in 1991 only 3 percent of the sharks were retained,
that is right, 3 percent of the sharks were retained, by 1998 60
percent of the sharks brought to the boat were killed for their fins
rather than being released. The only portion of the shark that is
retained are the fins, which obviously are kept for economic reasons.
This is a wasteful practice and should not be allowed. In addition,
it is inconsistent with the rules governing the harvest of sharks on
the East Coast, in the Gulf of Mexico, and, as I pointed out, in the
Caribbean.
Some have complained that this resolution undermines the authority of
the regional fisheries councils. This is not true, at least in my
opinion. This does nothing more than send a signal to the Western
Pacific Council, a shot across the bow, if you will, as well as to
others, that Congress does not like the practice of shark finning and
that those management bodies that manage sharks should take action to
prohibit it.
The Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans held
a hearing on this resolution on October 21, 1999, and heard testimony
from a number of interested parties, including the Western Pacific
Regional Fish Management Council. While the council did take action at
their last meeting to reduce the overall retention of sharks in the
longline fisheries, they took no action to reduce or eliminate the
practice of shark finning.
The full Committee on Resources passed this resolution with an
amendment by voice vote on October 27 of this year.
I believe Congress should continue to express our strong opposition
to this practice and should pass this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution and I concur
in the remarks of the subcommittee chairman. We had a good hearing and
all points of view were presented. I want to commend the gentleman from
California (Mr. Cunningham) for bringing this matter to us in the form
of a resolution.
I support this resolution. In fact, I would support a lot more, to
not just provide a sense of Congress, but to in fact act to prevent
this outrageous type of activity that is taking place in our fisheries.
What it amounts to, Mr. Speaker, as the chairman pointed out, is a
practice of longlining and catching tuna and other types of valuable
economic species of fish. At the same time there is some bycatch or
incidental catch of sharks.
The fact is that the economic value total of the shark is and could
be quite significant, but the most valuable portion of it is, of
course, the fins on that shark, which are often used for gourmet recipe
of shark fin soup. As we know, as its popularity has grown, this
particular practice of incidental bycatch, of stripping the fins off of
the sharks to be used for this purpose, is increasingly taking place.
I think, Mr. Speaker, it is ethically and morally wrong. I think many
parts of the shark, including the skin, the liver for its oil and other
qualities, and other materials that are present in the shark have some
economic value. But to take out the most valued part, which are the
fins, of course, that leaves a carcass of a large fish in the ocean to
be wasted. I think this is an outrage, and I hope that we can change
such practice with this resolution as the chairman said, a shot across
the bow. I would hope that would be the case.
I think that when we talk about the numbers here, it has been banned
in the Atlantic Ocean but continues to persist in the Pacific Ocean.
60,000 to 70,000 pacific sharks, and this number has risen over the
years to the point where in the last 5 years it has grown
exponentially, but risen to the point where nearly 70,000 animals are
in fact mistreated in this manner, which is worth I guess a couple
million dollars to those that are doing the shark finning. But I think
that the destruction of that type of resource screams for some type of
public policy action, and certainly this resolution is in step with
that. I hope that it results in actions that correct this outrageous
practice.
I know the Western Fisheries Council had made a goal of reducing the
number to 50,000. Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, I think that type of
change of policy path by itself is not enough, because I think it
misses the point as to what is taking place here with the destruction
of these species. Some of the species are very common, like the blue
shark, but there is indiscriminate treatment of these majestic fish and
the sharks that we have in the ocean that are being treated in this
way, and I think that the USA should be leading in terms of making the
policy changes in the Pacific regarding this deplorable practice.
Hopefully we could enlist other nations to follow us in terms of ending
this improper practice and exploitation of this valued fish species,
the shark. I urge Members to support this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I support this resolution which urges the Western
Pacific Fishery Management Council, the National Marine Fisheries
Service, and the State of Hawaii to ban shark finning in all Federal
and State waters in the Pacific Ocean.
Finning is a wasteful practice that is already prohibited in U.S.
waters in the Atlantic, the Gulf and the Carribean, in part, because it
leads to the overfishing of shark resources in those areas. It is time
for that prohibition to be in effect nationwide.
In addition, the U.S. has played a leadership role in promoting shark
conservation efforts internationally. Our continued efforts in this
arena will be hampered if this wasteful practice is allowed to continue
in our own waters.
This resolution does not override the authorities of the Western
Pacific Fishery Management Council. It simply tells them that this
Congress believes it is time for them to bring this wasteful practice
to an end, and I support its passage.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), who brought this issue to
our attention and who told us inasmuch as shark finning had already
been outlawed, if you will, in the Atlantic, the Caribbean and the Gulf
of Mexico, it made no sense to permit the practice to continue in the
western Pacific. I thank the gentleman for his great effort in bringing
this to our attention and making sure that we address the problem.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman

[[Page H11156]]

from New Jersey (Chairman Saxton) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Vento). I would also like to thank them for their support, both
Republicans and Democrats alike. This is an issue on which we can come
together.
Mr. Speaker, I introduced H. Con. Res. 189 to send a clear message
that shark finning is wasteful and unsportsmanlike. The destructive
practice of shark finning in the American waters off the central and
western Pacific must stop.
Mr. Speaker, years ago this country destroyed buffalo herds only for
the hides of those buffalo and left the meat to rot in the sun. What a
waste of a resource. They nearly decimated the herds for the Native
Americans. The same thing is done today with elephant tusks. To just
shoot an elephant and take the tusk and leave the meat rotting is
wrong. Or whether it is a seal pup for its hide, to take the hide and
let the carcass sit there in the snow is wrong. Shark finning is a
practice of removing shark fins and discarding the carcass into the
sea.
Mr. Speaker, I am a sportsman. I love to hunt and fish, but it is
under a managed system to make sure that our resources are here for our
children and their children and our grandchildren down the line.
I am also a diver, and I am not necessarily fond of sharks. I have
had a couple of occasions where I wished they had not have been so
close around. But they have been part of our ecosystem for millions of
years, and I think we need to manage that resource so that they are not
depleted. They went from taking 2,300 to nearly 61,000 sharks in very
short order. I think we ought to stop and take a look.
The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton) covered much of this
material, so I will submit a lot of it for the Record. But the action
that WestPac took was merely to cut from 60,000 to 50,000 the number of
sharks from finning.

{time} 1445

Yet, Mr. Speaker, 95 percent of those sharks are finned and just
dumped back into the water, some alive, left to drown, and some dead.
In any regard, it is inhumane, it is cruel, and it is wasteful.
The United States has emerged as a global leader in shark fisheries
management. Yet, as Ms. Sonya Fordham of the Center for Marine
Conservation notes, ``Our inability to address an egregious finning
problem within our own waters threatens to undermine the U.S. role in
these important international initiatives.''
I would also like to thank a gentlewoman who came all the way from
Hawaii, Ms. Brooke Burns, a young 21-year-old from the series of
Baywatch. She, I think, articulated in a most professional way the
support of the American people in why this practice should not
continue.
This spring, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton) and myself
plan to introduce legislation. And if Members can imagine, the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton), the gentleman from California
(Mr. Cunningham), and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Vento), if he
will join us, on a bill together on this floor, that will be a day. I
would say to my friend, we plan this spring, under the Magnuson Act, to
have legal and binding law to act accordingly.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record correspondence regarding this
matter:

Ocean Wildlife Campaign,

Washington, DC, September 22, 1999.
Hon. Randy Cunningham,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Cunningham: We are writing to express
serious concern regarding the management and health of shark
populations in U.S. Pacific waters, specifically in areas
under the jurisdiction of the Western Pacific Regional
Fishery Management Council (WESPAC). Driven by the
international demand for shark fin soup, the practice of
shark finning--cutting of a shark's fins and discarding its
carcass back into the ocean--is a rapidly growing problem
that is directly responsible for huge increases in the number
of sharks killed annually and appalling waste of this
nation's living marine resources. The National Marine
Fisheries Service has prohibited shark finning in the U.S.
Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean. It is time to ban
finning in the Pacific.
Between 1991 and 1998, the number of sharks ``retained'' by
the Hawaii-based swordfish and tuna longline fleet jumped
from 2,289 to 60,857 annually. In 1998, over 98 percent of
these sharks were killed for their fins to meet the demand
for shark fin soup. Because shark fins typically comprise
only one to five percent of a shark's bodyweight, 95 to 99
percent of the shark is going to waste. Sharks are
particularly vulnerable to overfishing because of their
``life history characteristics''--slow growth, late sexual
maturity, and the production of few young. Once depleted, a
population may take decades to recover.
The National Marine Fisheries Service, conservationists,
fishermen, scientists, and the public have pressured WESPAC
to end the practice of shark finning. Nevertheless, WESPAC
and the State of Hawaii recently failed to take action to end
or control finning.
This issue of shark finning is characterized by a dangerous
lack of management, rampant waste, and egregious
inconsistencies with U.S. domestic and international policy
stances. It is the most visible symptom of a larger problem:
a lack of comprehensive management for sharks in U.S. Pacific
waters. The history of poorly or unmanaged shark fisheries
around the world is unequivocal: rapid decline followed by
collapse. Sharks are not managed in U.S. Central and Western
Pacific waters, and with increased fishing pressure there may
be rapidly growing problems.
We urge your office to take whatever action is necessary to
immediately end the destructive practice of shark finning in
U.S. waters and encourage WESPAC to develop a comprehensive
fishery management plan for sharks that will, among other
things:
1. Immediately prohibit the finning of sharks;
2. Immediately reduce shark mortality levels by requiring
the live release of all bycatch or ``incidentally caught''
animals brought to the boat alive;
3. Immediately reduce the bycatch of sharks;
4. Prevent overfishing by quickly establishing
precautionary commercial and recreational quotas for sharks
until a final comprehensive management plan is adopted that
ensures the future health of the population. Given the
dramatic increase in the number of sharks killed in the
Hawaiian longline fishery, WESPAC should cap shark mortality
at 1994 levels as a minimum interim action, pending the
outcome of new population assessment.
Thank you for your attention to this urgent matter.
David Wilmot, Ph.D.,
Ocean Wildlife Campaign.
Carl Safina, Ph.D.,
National Audubon Society.
Lisa Speer,
Natural Resources Defense Council.
Tom Grasso,
World Wildlife Fund.
Sonja Fordham,
Center for Marine Conservation.
Ken Hinman,
National Coalition for Marine Conservation.
Ellen Pikitch, Ph.D.,
Wildlife Conservation Society.
____

Center For Marine Conservation,

Washington, DC, September 22, 1999.
Hon. Randy Cunningham,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Cunningham: On behalf of the Center for
Marine Conservation (CMC), I am writing to express our grave
concern for Pacific sharks, specifically those under the
jurisdiction of the Western Pacific Regional Fishery
Management Council (WESPAC). High demand for shark fin soup
has driven a dramatic surge in shark finning (the practice of
slicing off a shark's valuable fins and discarding the body
at sea) by the Hawaiian longline fleet. This appalling waste
of America's public marine resources is tied to alarming yet
unrestricted increases in mortality of some of the ocean's
most biologically vulnerable fish.
Shark conservation has long been a key element of CMC's
fisheries program due in large part to the life history
characteristics that leave sharks exceptionally susceptible
to overfishing. In general, sharks grow slowly, mature late
and produce a small number of young. Once depleted, shark
populations often require decades to recover. In the U.S.
Atlantic, for example, several overfished shark stocks will
require four decades to rebuild to healthy levels, even with
strict fishing controls. Indeed, nearly every large scale
shark fishery this century has ended in collapse.
Off Hawaii, the number of sharks killed and brought to the
dock (landed) has increased by more than 2500 percent,
skyrocketing from just 2,289 sharks in 1991 to 60,857 sharks
in 1998. In 1998, over 98 percent of these sharks were killed
solely for their fins. Considering that shark fins typically
comprise only one to five percent of a shark's bodyweight, 95
to 99 percent of the shark is going to waste.
CMC has been calling upon Western Pacific fishery managers
to restrict shark fisheries and ban finning for more than 5
years. More recently, similar demands have been made by many
other national conservation organizations as well as local
Hawaiian environmental and fishing groups, international
scientific societies, concerned citizens, and several
Department of Commerce high-ranking officials. A recent poll
by Seaweb found that finning was among the ocean issues most
disturbing to the American public. Nevertheless, WESPAC and
the State of Hawaii have yet to take action to control
finning or limit shark mortality.

[[Page H11157]]

Shark finning in particular runs counter not only to the
will of the American public, to which these resources belong,
but also to U.S. domestic and international policy as
expressed in:
the Sustainable Fisheries Act (SFA);
the Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for Sharks of the
Atlantic Ocean; the United Nations Food and Agricultural
Organization (FAO) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries;
and
the FAO International Plan of Action for Sharks.
In addition, as you are likely aware, California is just
one of many coastal states to ban finning within their
waters.
In the U.S. Atlantic, the lucrative market for shark fins
drove an intense fishery that led to severe depletion of
several shark populations within less than 10 years. Citing
``universal and strong support'' for a ban on finning on
behalf of the non-fishing American public, the National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) banned the practice in U.S.
Atlantic in 1993, stating that:
NMFS believes that finning is wasteful of valuable shark
resources and poses a threat to attaining the conservation
objectives of fishery management under the Magnuson Act.
This year, NMFS expanded the existing finning ban from the
39 regulated species to all sharks in the Atlantic while
Department of Commerce officials have repeatedly, yet
unsuccessfully, called upon WESPAC to halt finning.
In recent years, the United States has emerged as a world
leader in crafting and promoting landmark, international
agreements pertaining to sharks and continues to lead efforts
to raise global awareness of their plight and special
management needs. Yet, our inability to address an egregious
finning problem within our own waters threatens to undermine
the U.S. role in these important international initiatives.
CMC asks for your assistance in ensuring an immediate end
to the wasteful practice of finning, accompanied by a
requirement that all incidentally-caught sharks brought to
the boat alive be released alive. In addition, a
comprehensive Pacific shark management plan that prevents
overfishing and reduces bycatch is absolutely crucial to
safeguarding these especially vulnerable animals;
precautionary catch limits in the Western Pacific (no higher
than 1994 mortality levels) are needed until such a plan is
complete.
Thank you for your attention to this urgent matter.
Sincerely,
Sonja V. Fordham,
Fisheries Project Manager.
____

American Sportfishing

Association,

Alexandria, VA, September 23, 1999.
Hon. Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham,
House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Cunningham: On behalf of the nearly 500
members of the American Sportfishing Association, I wish to
express my strong support for your resolution to ban the
wasteful practice of shark finning. I commend your initiative
in tackling this important, yet easily dismissed issue.
For far too long, we have neglected to take action to stop
this most unsportsmanlike fishing activity. We now know that
the best shark is not a dead shark; that these oft maligned
fish play critical roles in preserving balance in the marine
ecosystem. Healthy shark populations help maintain robust
fisheries. Your effort to ban finning will not only benefit
depressed shark populations, but many other species of
commercially and recreationally important fish.
Thank you for your leadership in this area.
Sincerely,
Mike Hayden,
President/CEO.
____

The Cousteau Society,

Chesapeake, VA, October 8, 1999.
Hon. Randy Cunningham,
Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman: The Cousteau Society, on behalf of its
150,000 members, strongly supports H. Con. Res. 189,
expressing the sense of the Congress regarding the wasteful
and unsportsmanlike practice known as shark finning.
The Cousteau Society's own lengthy expedition to film the
white shark in Australia confirmed vividly how little is
known about even this well-publicized species; even less data
are available for the hundreds of shark species that have not
caught public or commercial attention. Whenever enough
information is gathered about a given kind of shark to
confirm a judgment on its status, that judgment is almost
inevitably that the species is over-fished and must be
protected to survive. Lack of information is obviously no
good reason to delay conservation.
The Cousteau Society fully endorses your recommendation to
the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council, the State of
Hawaii and the National Marine Fisheries Service to ban
finning in the central and western Pacific Ocean.
Conservation must not wait for perfect science nor unanimous
agreement. Please hold absolutely firm in insisting on an end
to this destructive practice.
Yours truly,
Clark Lee S. Merriam.
____

Western Pacific

Fisheries Coalition,

Kailua, HI, September 30, 1999.
Hon. Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham,
Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC
Dear Congressman Cunningham. First let me thank you for
introducing H. Con. Res. 189 and for taking an interest in
the blatant waste of one of our natural resources here in the
Western Pacific. The Shark Finning issue here has brought a
new awareness to the problem not only in the Western Pacific
region, but on a global scale. We have been involved in
fisheries management here in Hawaii for over 15 years and
have represented, on some Council issues, more than 18,000
Hawaiian fishermen and concerned individuals. I have been a
commercial and recreational fisherman and hunter for over 40
years, but I've never seen such irresponsible actions by
fishermen, much less Federal fishery managers, who continue
to be proponents for shark finning.
The NMFS has already implemented a ``full utilization''
plan in the Atlantic and the Gulf, has justified the record
and the basis for it. The Atlantic Highly Migratory Species
FMO and Final Regulations, 15 CFR Part 902, published May 28,
1999, in vol. 64 Federal Register, pp. 29090 et seq. NMFS'
response to public comments on proposed regulations to
implement Atlantic HMS FMP (at pp. 29108-09):
Anti-Finning of Sharks
Comment 1: NMFS should implement the proposed total
prohibition on finning. Response: NMFS agrees. Extending the
prohibition on finning to all species of sharks will greatly
enhance enforcement and contribute to rebuilding or
maintenance of all shark species.
Comment 2: NMFS should not extend the prohibition on
finning sharks because it disadvantages U.S. fishermen
relative to foreign competitors and NMFS should allow a
tolerance for blue shark fins to be landed. Response: NMFS
disagrees. Finning of sharks within the Federal management
unit has been prohibited since the original shark FMP was
implemented in 1993 due to excessive waste associated with
this practice. NMFS extends the prohibition on finning to all
sharks to enhance enforcement and facilitate stock rebuilding
and maintenance.
In a June 21, 1999 letter to the Chairman of the Western
Pacific Council, Mr. Terry Garcia directs the Council to
``take immediate action to ban the practice of shark
finning''. In the letter, Mr. Garcia points out that the US
has been a leading proponent of international shark
conservation measures at the United Nations FAO meetings this
year. He goes on to say that ``The US position during
development of the International Plan of Action for the
Conservation and Management of Sharks was that the FAO should
affirmatively address this issue, even to the extent of
putting in place a global ban on shark finning''. Mr.
Garcia's letter concludes by saying that ``The Council should
amend the Western Pacific Pelagic Fishery Management Plan to
require full utilization of all sharks harvested in this
fishery''.
NMFS and the Department of Commerce's position is clear. Is
finning any less of a waste in the Pacific as opposed to the
Gulf or Atlantic? The Council unfortunately has known about
this problem since 1993 and have repeatedly been told to stop
finning by NMFS as early as 1995, without any action being
taken. Now the Council, as a result of your resolution, is
trying to justify their position in Congress by claiming that
NMFS has not given them the funding to gather the necessary
information nor has NMFS supplied the Council with the
necessary data that would allow them to take action.
Obviously these excuses are merely a way to shift the
responsibility of the Council to NMFS.
NMFS has been very consistent in their position that shark
finning is a ``waste'' issue and not a biological one. The
Council has gone so far as to ask NMFS to define ``waste''
even though the Council Chairman has at one point himself,
called shark finning a ``wasteful practice''. If people are
going to try and confuse the issue of finning over the
definition of waste, we've all digressed to the point where
our fisheries are in serious trouble. Look at the history of
the fisheries that have collapsed. Have they collapsed
because people called for more management? Have they
collapsed because people called for a precautionary approach
and a reduction of waste? Or have they collapsed because
people used excuses like, we don't have enough data yet, we
don't have the enforcement, it's a complex issue or many
others that all had one thing in common, they all lead to
overfishing. A U.S. Supreme Court Justice once said during a
Hearing on Pornography . . . ``I don't know the definition of
pornography, but I know it when I see it''. I suspect his
opinion of waste might go along these same lines.
In a recent response from the NMFS Honolulu Lab, Dr.
Michael Laurs indicated that they HAVE NOT even begun a
biological assessment of blue sharks and will not have any
preliminary information until Spring 2000. Based on this
information we are very concerned that no one seems to
actually know the status of these stocks. The Council's
claims that Japanese Data has been used by the Council to
determine that the stocks are healthy is somewhat disturbing
as the United States could not depend on Japanese data with
regard to High Seas Driftnetting or Whaling, which in both
cases the Japanese data once again claimed that these
practices were not threatening the stocks.

[[Page H11158]]

I've asked the State Representative, who introduced our
Shark finning legislation here in Hawaii last year, to
forward you all the testimony his committees received in
support of a ban which clearly shows the widespread support
this issue had here in the Islands. Native Hawaiians have
written in protest, testified and have written letters
calling for a halt to finning. Charter Boat Captains in
Hawaii, Commercial fishermen in Hawaii (both native and non-
native) have supported a ban and they in fact catch sharks.
Recreational fishermen, conservationists, scientists, State
politicians and some of the Hawaii Congressional Delegation
in Washington have supported a ban on finning, as well as the
State of Hawaii.
Please don't let people confuse this issue as this isn't
about a biological assessment or cruel practice, it is all
about waste. Releasing the sharks that are caught as
incidental catch alive or fully utilizing the shark, would
not increase by-catch as much as it would reduce waste and
by-catch mortality.
Once again thank you for your support and if there is
anything we can do to support your initiative, please don't
hesitate to contact us.
Best personal regards,
Bob Endreson.
____

State of Hawai'i

Office of Hawaiian Affairs,

Honolulu, HI, October 8, 1999.
Hon. Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham,
Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC.

Re: Support for H. Con. Res. 189 on Shark Finning.

Dear Congressman Cunningham: I am writing to thank you for
introducing H. Con. Res. 189 to stop the wasteful practice of
shark finning in the Central, South, and West Pacific. The
Administration of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA),
acting consistently with Board of Trustees policies and
views, supports H. Con. Res. 189. We would also like to
suggest some amendments to strengthen the arguments already
made in H. Con. Res. 189. OHA is a quasi-state agency tasked
with working toward the betterment of Native Hawaiians, by
advocating for the recognition and continuation of Hawaiian
culture and identity.
As you are no doubt aware, there has been considerable
outcry among the Native Hawaiian population, as well as the
population at large in Hawaii, about the practice of shark
finning. This public disdain for this wasteful fishing
practice was most recently debated both in our State
legislature and at a meeting of the Western Pacific Regional
Fishery Management Council (WPRFMC).
Cultural Significance
Because Hawaiian culture is integrally tied to the health,
abundance, and access to indigenous natural resources,
Hawaiians have always striven to play a stewardship role by
sound management and protection of the natural environment on
which the culture relies. Unfortunately, Hawaii is constantly
endangered by the imposition of Western beliefs, customs,
religions, and economic desires that do not necessary hold
similar views about the importance of the natural
environment. Taking a small portion of a shark or any animal
and wasting the remainder clearly runs counter to Hawaiian
stewardship views. Traditional use of sharks in Hawaiian
culture meant whole utilization of the animal.
Equally as important to Hawaiians is the cultural and
spiritual significance of the shark itself. Many Hawaiian
families hold the shark in special esteem as the physical
manifestation (called Kinolau) of their family guardian
(aumakua), who was also regarded as a family ancestor. There
are many other kinolau in Hawaiian culture, including the
owl, lizard, dog, rocks, and clouds. Imagine the uproar that
would arise if the Spotted Owl were to be taken, even as
``bycatch,'' for its wings. The intensity of feeling about
shark finning among Hawaiians is a hundred-fold magnified
because of the special spiritual significance of the shark.
To hurt or destroy the shark wantonly and intentionally is
for many families equivalent to desecrating one's own
ancestors and heritage. As forcefully stated by respected
Hawaiian cultural practitioner and member of WFRFMC's Native
and Indigenous Rights Advisory Panel Charles Kauluwehi
Maxwell Sr. at a recent WPRFMC meeting, the practice of shark
finning is ``very offensive'' to Hawaiians.
OHA believes that shark finning should not be allowed to
continue, and that the U.S. government should not allow
landings of shark fins unless it is taken from a shark landed
whole.
Suggested Amendments to Bill
We feel that H. Con. Res. 189 can be strengthened by
including language to express the culturally offensive nature
of shark finning, as described above. Therefore, we suggest
inserting the following language or similar:
``. . . Whereas shark finning in the Western Pacific occurs
in and around the waters of Hawaii, among other U.S. Pacific
holdings;
Whereas the indigenous Native Hawaiian people regard sharks
highly as being culturally and spiritually important to their
heritage;
Whereas wasteful use of a culturally significant animal
such as the shark is offensive to Native Hawaiians; . . .''
The Council's Role
In an interview with a reporter during the WPRFMC meeting
several months ago, Council Chair James D. Cook stated that
environmentalists' concerns and native Hawaiians' cultural
concerns should not influence decisions made by the Council
on decisions about shark finning. OHA feels that Mr. Cook's
culturally insensitive comment warrants attention and
clarification about WPRFMC's position on cultural issues.
Perhaps WPRFMC's duties and responsibilities towards
indigenous peoples and their cultural/traditional fishing
practices under the Magnuson-Stevens Act needs to be
reassessed.
As the full name of the Magnuson-Stevens Act indicates, its
objective is to conserve and manage fisheries. Moreover, the
Act clearly places importance on cultural considerations.
Section 104-297 of the Act states the following regarding
community development programs:
``. . . the Western Pacific Council shall base such
criteria on traditional fishing practices in or dependence on
the fishery, the cultural and social framework relevant to
the fishery, and economic barriers to access to the
fishery,'' and
``Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the
Western Pacific Council shall take into account traditional
indigenous fishing practices in preparing any fishery
management plan.''
OHA feels that Mr. Cook's comment then begs the question of
what the Council's priorities are in managing fisheries, and
specifically if it is truly taking cultural considerations
into account.
We hope that you will consider this need to scrutinize
WPRFMC's priorities and culturally sensitive issues like
shark finning when you introduce legislation to amend the
Magnuson-Stevens Act later this year.
If we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate
to contact Sebastian Aloot, Hawaiian Rights Officer, or Nami
Ohtomo, Natural Resources Policy Analyst, at 594-1755.
Sincerely,
Randall Ogata,
Administrator.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Vento), the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton), the committee members, and the
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) for expediting this to the floor.
Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Resources
Subcommittee Chairman Jim Saxton and the Ranking Democrat Mr.
Faleomavaega for their work on this resolution. Indeed, H. Con. Res.
189 is important because it has helped elevate the awareness of shark
finning practices in the Pacific. I'm sure that many Americans have
been moved, as I have, by television images showing workers aboard
fishing vessels, both foreign and domestic, slicing off the fins of
caught sharks and throwing the carcasses back into the ocean. It's easy
to understand why we are moved by these pictures. They are very
powerful and appeal to our sense of human decency and respect for ``not
wasting our kill.''
The resolution before us however, does not take any comprehensive
approach to end the practice of shark finning. Though it presents us
with statistical data showing us the enormous increase of shark finning
activity in the Pacific over the past eight years, it neglects to
address the volume of U.S. imports which helps to support the demand
for shark finning to occur. If we want this resolution to offer
meaningful and substantive changes in the treatment of sharks, this
resolution should address a ban on importation.
Moreover, the authority of the Western Pacific Regional Fishery
Management Council--which is the federally recognized regional council
responsible for developing management plans for fisheries for the
exclusive economic zones of the State of Hawaii and the U.S. Pacific
territories--will be usurped with the passage of this resolution. These
regional councils are in place to develop sound and responsible fishery
management plans while being mindful of the unique circumstances of the
presiding region. I am concerned that passing this resolution sets a
precedent which can call in to question the integrity and authority of
all federally mandated regional fishery management councils in the U.S.
Mr. Speaker, the practice of shark finning is unfortunate. We should
not, however, avert the authorities of regional councils in lieu of our
unwillingness to address this issue in a comprehensive manner.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Concurrent
Resolution 189, relating to the practice of shark finning.
There is no question that the practice is wasteful of a resource and
should be discontinued. This issue has been on the agenda of the
Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council (WESPAC), which is
responsible for managing our Western Pacific fisheries resources.
WESPAC has been studying this issue, and I encourage them to continue
to do so in order to compile the necessary data to take definitive
action. In that regard, I would note that the Council has requested
additional funds from NMFS during the past three years to do so, and as
evidenced by our endorsement of this resolution today, there is a
critical

[[Page H11159]]

need for NMFS to comply with the request. I want to work closely with
Representatives Eni Faleomavaega, Jim Saxton, Wayne Gilchrest, George
Miller, Don Young and the Appropriations Committee to make sure there
is adequate federal support for the broad and extensive
responsibilities for which WESPAC is charged. The fisheries of the
Western Pacific economic zones for which WESPAC is responsible
comprises approximately forty-eight percent of the entire area NMFS
regulates, but WESPAC receives only twelve percent of the total funding
all the commissions receive. We must make certain that we give the
Commission the tools, resources and support they need in order to
credibly discharge their formidable responsibilities.
Secondly, I would like to point out that even with enactment of this
resolution or additional legislation amending the Magnuson-Stevens Act
to ban shark finning, this is an international problem, and follow-up
action must be initiated and undertaken in order to effectively end the
practice internationally. Far more fins are unloaded in California
ports, Hong Kong and other sites than in Hawaii, and the issue of
transshipping of fins must also be addressed. If we are serious about
ending finning, we need to act on several fronts.
By citing the waste inherent in finning, the resolution raises the
issue of full utilization of the products harvested from sharks. Fins
should not be the only part of animal used and we need to develop
refined products and markets in order to more fully make good use of
shark parts. The resolution cites the waste inherent in finning, and
yet there is an implicit level of utilization in other marine products.
For example, to what extent is taking solely roe from fish or sea
urchins wasteful? NMFS should address these utilization issues as it
undertakes regulatory actions impacting shark catches.
The last matter I would like to raise is that of compensation for
lost income which will be sustained by Hawaii fishermen and industry.
Shark fins generate significant revenue, and traditionally most of its
goes directly to the crews of the fishing fleet. The resolution does
not address lost compensation for crews, but I am pointing out the
issue to indicate the complexity of the issue, and equity in addressing
the economic consequences of fisheries regulatory decisions, based on
precedents set by previous NMFS actions and decisions.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the resolution, as well as
addressing the underlying and associated issues it raises.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Petri). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton) that the House
suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution, H. Con. Res.
189, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the rules were suspended and the concurrent resolution, as
amended, was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________