Chapter IV — Marine Mammal-Fisheries Interactions 



tropical Pacific were generally healthy; that the two 

 depleted stocks, northeastern offshore spotted dolphins 

 and eastern spinner dolphins, would rebound to 

 optimal levels in the next few years; and that the 

 present quotas were biologically insignificant. With 

 respect to the latter point, the Tuna Commission noted 

 that if incidental take in the eastern tropical Pacific 

 tuna fishery were treated under a potential biological 

 removal level standard, as are other fisheries under 

 the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the annual 

 allowable mortality and serious injury of dolphins 

 would exceed 50,000. 



The American Tunaboat Owners Coalition proposed 

 the broadest amendments to the Marine Mammal 

 Protection Act that, in its view, would allow U.S. 

 tuna fishermen to return to the eastern tropical Pacific 

 on an equal footing with foreign fishermen. The 

 Coalition advocated an amendment to substitute the 

 provisions of the Inter-American Tropical Tuna 

 Commission dolphin conservation program for the 

 provisions currently set forth in the Act. This would 

 include repealing the ban on U.S. fishermen encircling 

 dolphins, including those stocks designated as deplet- 

 ed, as well as the ban on importing and selling tuna 

 caught by encircling dolphins. Existing quotas would 

 be replaced by those established under the internation- 

 al program and would reflect the dolphin mortality 

 limits assigned to individual vessels under that pro- 

 gram. The Coalition further proposed limiting the 

 international quotas to reflect stock-specific potential 

 biological removal levels applicable to marine mam- 

 mals taken incidental to domestic fisheries. The 

 Coalition supported replacing the current embargo 

 provisions with an embargo of tuna harvested by 

 vessels of any country that does not participate in the 

 international program. The Coalition also backed an 

 amendment to repeal the dolphin-safe labeling stan- 

 dards, deferring instead to general Federal Trade 

 Commission labeling standards and consumer choice. 

 The Coalition emphasized that the existing labeling 

 standards were based on an unsupported premise that 

 encirclement of dolphins is in itself harmful. 



The testimony of the National Fisheries Institute, 

 whose membership consists of about 1,000 fishery- 

 related businesses, focused not specifically on the 

 eastern tropical Pacific tuna fishery but on the broader 

 ramifications of U.S. tuna embargoes on the seafood 



industry. The crux of the Institute's testimony was 

 that imposition of unilateral trade sanctions and refusal 

 by the United States to recognize the primacy of the 

 International Dolphin Conservation Program under- 

 mine the cooperation needed to conserve other fishery 

 resources upon which U.S. fishermen and processors 

 depend. In particular, the Institute noted the need for 

 cooperation by Mexico, Venezuela, and other western 

 hemisphere nations in managing fish stocks under the 

 auspices of the International Commission for Conser- 

 vation of Atlantic Tunas and in reducing the take of 

 sea turtles incidental to shrimp fisheries. The Institute 

 also argued that the nations subject to U.S. embargoes 

 had found alternative markets for their tuna and those 

 suffering most were U.S. firms and customers that 

 historically relied on the banned products. The 

 Institute also expressed fear that U.S. fishery products 

 could be subject to retaliatory trade sanctions if the 

 rulings of the GATT dispute resolution panel are ever 

 adopted. 



Earth Island Institute, representing 16 environmental 

 and animal welfare organizations including Defenders 

 of Wildlife and the Humane Society of the United 

 States, opposed amending the tuna-dolphin provisions 

 of the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Earth Island 

 Institute remained committed to a complete elimina- 

 tion of dolphin mortality, to the establishment of a 

 global moratorium on the practice of encircling 

 dolphins, and to retaining the current definition of 

 dolphin-safe tuna. To do otherwise, it argued, would 

 be contrary to the Marine Mammal Protection Act's 

 goal of achieving a zero mortality and serious injury 

 rate incidental to commercial fishing operations. 

 Earth Island Institute further asserted that, even if no 

 encircled dolphins are killed in purse seine nets, the 

 stress resulting from repeated chase and capture likely 

 causes numerous physiological problems. Earth 

 Island Institute pointed to the experience of those U.S. 

 fishermen who have continued to fish in the eastern 

 tropical Pacific as evidence that a commercially viable 

 fishery can be maintained without setting on dolphins. 



Earth Island Institute maintained that the current 

 U.S. prohibition on the sale of tuna caught in associa- 

 tion with dolphins was working and should not be 

 modified. It contended that allowing access to the 

 U.S. market would unnecessarily harm dolphins by 

 allowing the number of dolphins killed to double from 



105 



