Chapter III — Species of Special Concern 



Developing a Co-Management Plan — In Decem- 

 ber 1988 Alaska Natives formed the Alaska Sea Otter 

 Commission to promote Native participation in 

 development of policies and programs affecting sea 

 otters and their use in Alaska. The Commission is 

 comprised of representatives from Alaska coastal 

 regions where sea otters occur. 



To facilitate Native involvement in developing and 

 implementing an agreed sea otter conservation plan, 

 the Alaska Sea Otter Commission drafted and in 1991 

 proposed that the Fish and Wildlife Service, the 

 Alaska Department of Fish and Game, and the Sea 

 Otter Commission enter into a formal Memorandum 

 of Agreement specifying their respective responsibili- 

 ties related to the conservation of sea otters in Alaska. 

 Subsequently the Marine Mammal Commission, in 

 consultation with the Sea Otter Commission and 

 others, developed a draft sea otter conservation plan, 

 which it provided to the Fish and Wildlife Service on 

 5 May 1992. The Sea Otter Commission also began 

 work on regional sea otter management plans to 

 complement the statewide sea otter conservation plan 

 being developed by the Fish and Wildlife Service. 



A Memorandum of Agreement satisfactory to all 

 three parties was signed on 1 February 1994 by 

 representatives of the Fish and Wildlife Service, the 

 Alaska Department of Fish and Game, and the Alaska 

 Sea Otter Commission. The purpose of the agreement 

 is to assist signatories in the cooperative management 

 of sea otters in Alaska by providing for the exchange 

 of biological, management, and socioeconomic infor- 

 mation, and to support the requirements of pertinent 

 laws, regulations, and resolutions. Further, in 1994 

 the Sea Otter Commission completed draft manage- 

 ment plans for sea otters in the Chugach (Prince 

 William Sound), southeast, and Kodiak regions. 

 During 1995 draft plans for the remaining three 

 regions — Bristol Bay, Cook Inlet, and Aleutian- 

 Pribilof — were completed and forwarded to the 

 Native communities for review. 



Internal review has been completed for the Chu- 

 gach, southeast, and Kodiak regions. The Service has 

 reviewed and commented on the southeast manage- 

 ment plan. Thus far, the review process does not 

 include a response to comments prior to final ization of 

 the plans. When the internal review is completed, the 



draft plans will be provided to the Fish and Wildlife 

 Service, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 

 and the Marine Mammal Commission for review. 



CITES Permit Request — The Convention on 

 International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild 

 Fauna and Flora (CITES) requires that before species 

 listed on Appendix I or II may be exported, a permit 

 must be obtained. The responsible government 

 agency may issue a permit only if it determines that 

 the specimen was acquired lawfully and that the 

 proposed export would not be detrimental to the 

 species' survival. 



As noted in the previous annual report, on 1 April 

 1994, Kuiu Kwan Inc., of Lynnwood, Washington, 

 applied to the Fish and Wildlife Service for a permit 

 to export three sea otter pelts on which were painted 

 Alaska Native artwork. The pelts were to be used as 

 product samples to determine if a foreign market 

 existed for painted pelts. 



In response to a 31 May 1994 Federal Register 

 notice on the permit application, the Marine Mammal 

 Commission by letter of 14 July 1995 provided 

 comments to the Service. The Commission noted that 

 a decision on whether to issue a CITES export permit 

 in the Kuiu Kwan case would hinge on whether the 

 proposed export would be detrimental to the survival 

 of the species and whether the pelts were acquired 

 lawfully. 



In the Commission's opinion, the export of pelts 

 from three animals would not be detrimental to the 

 survival of the Alaska sea otter population or any sub- 

 population. The Commission noted, however, that the 

 export of the pelts would be merely a prelude to 

 further exports, should a foreign market be developed. 

 Therefore, the Commission advised that, if an export 

 permit is issued, the Service should advise the permit- 

 tee that making future findings of "no detriment" may 

 be difficult for any large-scale commerce in sea otter 

 pelts that may result. 



As to whether the animals were lawfully acquired, 

 the Commission noted that this requirement would 

 have been met in this instance only if the painted sea 

 otter pelts constitute "authentic Native articles of 

 handicrafts" as defined in the Marine Mammal Protec- 



53 



