of each affected species and the maximum number of animals 



that may be taken without reducing the species below that level. 



Certain additional points are germane to requests for 

 transfer of management to the State of Alaska. For example, 

 in the case of depleted species, the State of Alaska's conser- 

 vation and management program must include mechanisms to deter- 

 mine the maximum numbers of animals that can be taken by sub- 

 sistence users while still allowing the species to increase 

 towards its optimum sustainable population. Furthermore, 

 Alaska's program must include a State statute and regulations 

 requiring that subsistence takings not be wasteful and that 

 priority use be given to subsistence rather than other consump- 

 tive uses of the species. 



As discussed in previous Annual Reports, in 1976 the 

 State of Alaska sought and received authority to manage walruses 

 and, in 1979, the State relinquished that authority to the 

 Fish and Wildlife Service. In 1982, the State of Alaska again 

 took preliminary steps to request a transfer of management 

 for ten species of marine mammals — the same species, listed 

 above, for which species reports have been prepared. Early 

 in 1984, the State solicited public comments to help it make 

 a final decision on whether to proceed with such a request. 

 As a part of this process, the Alaska Department of Fish and 

 Game conducted 49 public meetings to provide information on 

 the transfer process requirements, to explain the likely con- 

 sequences of a State management program, and to solicit comments 

 from coastal residents and other affected parties. The meetings 

 were completed early in 1985. 



On 22 February 1985, however, the Alaska Supreme Court, 

 in Madison v. Alaska Department of Fish and Game , invalidated 

 a Board of Fisheries regulation designed to identify eligibility 

 for subsistence fishing in the Cook Inlet region. The decision 

 called into question the consistency of the State's subsistence 

 requirements with provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection 

 Act, thereby complicating the State's decision to request 

 return of management authority for marine mammals. 



On 30 May 1986, the State amended its subsistence law to 

 remove the discrepancies between State and Federal subsis- 

 tence requirements. By letter of 18 November 1986, the Depart- 

 ment of the Interior's Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife 

 and Parks informed the State that the amendment brought State 

 law into compliance with the subsistence requirements of the 

 Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. Those require- 

 ments are virtually identical to the subsistence provisions 

 of section 109(f)(1) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act. 

 Thus, it appears that the impediment to transfer of management 

 imposed by the Madison decision has been removed. 



73 



