such a review could best be accomplished by a workshop of govern- 

 ment and non-government scientists involved in work on bottlenose 

 dolphins and that it had therefore established a core review 

 group. However, conflicting schedules of review group members 

 had made it impossible to meet before fall 1989. Therefore, to 

 accelerate review of the survey data, the Service had decided to 

 begin the review process through the mail and had sent relevant 

 materials to the core review group on 8 June 1989. The Service 

 noted that it would respond to the remaining recommendations laid 

 out by the Commission in its 23 May letter in the near future. 



On 24 November 1989, the Commission received a letter from 

 the Service, addressing the issues raised in the Commission's 

 letters of 12 April and 23 May 1989. In its response, the 

 Service noted that it was unable to comment on the Commission's 

 question concerning the possible effects of chase and capture on 

 bottlenose dolphin survival and reproduction. It added that it 

 was currently collecting available data and querying permit 

 holders and collectors for information on numbers of animals 

 chased, encircled, and released. Once collected, these data must 

 be analyzed to determine the possible effect of chase and capture 

 on bottlenose dolphin survival. Among others things, the Service 

 noted that it would develop quota recommendations for taking of 

 bottlenose dolphins from management units based on the resolution 

 of the available data by January 1990. 



On 28 December 1989, the Commission responded to the 

 Service's 24 November letter. Among other things, the Commission 

 noted that, with respect to monitoring, the program proposed by 

 the Service's Southeast Fisheries Center would allow detection of 

 declines on the order of 4 0-45 percent over periods of three to 

 five years, but that the Center had not received adequate funding 

 to fully implement the planned monitoring program. The Commis- 

 sion further noted that, whether or not funding is available, a 

 more basic problem was that the proposed program seemed inade- 

 quate to verify that authorized removals, by themselves and in 

 conjunction with other removals such as incidental take in com- 

 mercial fisheries, did not cause any of the affected porpoise 

 populations to be reduced below their maximum net productivity 

 level. The Commission therefore suggested that the Service pro- 

 vide an assessment of the type of program (including cost esti- 

 mates) that would be required to monitor the affected populations 

 with sufficient precision to detect population declines before 

 such populations can be reduced below their maximum net produc- 

 tivity levels. The Commission also requested that the Service 

 provide an assessment of what it would cost the public display 

 industry if the cost of the population monitoring program were 

 passed on, in whole or in part, to the institutions taking and/or 

 maintaining dolphins for public display. 



In its letter, the Commission also noted that uncertainties 

 concerning the numbers, sex, and ages of bottlenose dolphins 



71 



