Chapter IV — Marine Mammal-Fisheries Interactions 



Research on the status of dolphin stocks and on the 

 effects of chase and encirclement of dolphins would 

 also be required. 



In many respects, the Boxer bill tracks the Stevens 

 bill. There are, however, several key differences. 

 The most significant differences concern what tuna 

 may be imported into the United States and how that 

 tuna may be labeled. The Boxer bill would retain the 

 current provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection 

 Act that effectively prohibit the import of tuna that is 

 not dolphin-safe. It would also preserve the existing 

 definition of dolphin-safe tuna as tuna harvested on a 

 trip during which no dolphins sets were made. Data 

 from the past two years suggest that about 20 to 30 

 percent of the yellowfin tuna from the eastern tropical 

 Pacific is harvested using dolphin-safe fishing tech- 

 niques. Thus, the Boxer bill offers only limited relief 

 to those nations currently subject to embargoes. 

 Further, the Boxer bill's import provisions would 

 apply only to those nations that are members of the 

 Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission; it would 

 not include those nations that had initiated steps to 

 become members. 



The Boxer bill also takes a more aggressive ap- 

 proach to pursuing the zero mortality rate goal of the 

 Marine Mammal Protection Act than does the Stevens 

 bill or the Declaration of Panama. While the mortali- 

 ty cap of 5,000 dolphins would be adopted for 1996, 

 there would be an accompanying requirement that the 

 quota be reduced by a statistically significant amount 

 in each successive year until the goal of zero mortality 

 is reached. The Boxer bill would also limit the annual 

 stock-specific quotas for depleted dolphins to the 

 levels achieved in 1994. 



The Boxer bill, like the Stevens bill, tries to put 

 U.S. and foreign tuna fishermen operating in the 

 eastern tropical Pacific on an equal footing. The 

 current prohibition on encircling dolphins would be 

 lifted and U.S. fishermen allowed to operate under the 

 International Dolphin Conservation Program, subject 

 to an assigned vessel dolphin mortality limit. Howev- 

 er, U.S. fishermen would be subject to the same 

 import limitations as would foreign fishermen. Any 

 tuna they caught during a trip on which dolphins were 

 encircled would be excluded from the U.S. market. 



A further limitation on U.S. fishermen would 

 continue in place under the Boxer bill. They would 

 not be allowed to set on any depleted stock of dol- 

 phins, including northeastern offshore spotted dol- 

 phins, the most commonly encircled stock in the 

 northern part of the fishery. 



Behind some of the more restrictive provisions of 

 the Boxer bill is a belief that the practice of setting on 

 dolphins, whether or not they are killed, may be 

 harmful. Some supporters of the bill have postulated 

 that stress caused by chase and encirclement may be 

 retarding the recovery of eastern tropical Pacific 

 dolphin stocks. They believe that additional research 

 into the effects of this practice is needed before 

 changes to U.S. law are made. Consistent with this 

 view, the Boxer bill would authorize $1 million for 

 research on the effects of chase and encirclement of 

 dolphins and on the bycatch associated with dolphin- 

 safe fishing practices. 



Neither the Stevens bill nor the Boxer bill, if 

 enacted, would become effective until a binding 

 international agreement establishing the International 

 Dolphin Conservation Program had been adopted and 

 entered into effect. 



At the end of 1995 no Congressional action had 

 been taken on any of the bills. It is expected that 

 hearings will be held early in 1996. 



Pinniped-Fishery Interactions 



The 1994 amendments added several new provisions 

 to the Marine Mammal Protection Act relating specifi- 

 cally to pinniped-fishery interactions. Section 120(a- 

 e) allows states to request and the Secretary of Com- 

 merce to grant authority for the lethal removal of 

 individual pinnipeds affecting certain salmonid stocks 

 without obtaining a waiver of the Act's moratorium 

 on taking, provided certain conditions are met. 

 Section 120(f) directs the Secretary of Commerce to 

 investigate and to submit a report by 1 October 1995 

 indicating whether California sea lions and Pacific 

 harbor seals are having a significant negative impact 

 on recovery of salmonid fishery stocks or other 

 components of the coastal ecosystems of Washington, 



109 



