Recovery Team and early in 1983 it completed and 
adopted a final recovery plan for monk seals. 
Beginning in the early 1980s Congress appropriat- 
ed funds to the Service specifically for work on monk 
seals, and available support for needed recovery work 
increased substantially. Among other things, the 
Service used the increased funding to institute a long- 
term population monitoring program; begin a “head- 
start” project at Kure Atoll aimed at increasing 
survival of pups during their first months after wean- 
ing; rehabilitate underweight pups from French 
Frigate Shoals; document and minimize interactions 
with commercial fisheries; free entangled seals and 
clear beaches of debris that could entangle animals; 
and work with the Coast Guard and the Navy to 
reduce disturbance of monk seals on island beaches. 
Based on the results of the Service’s research 
program, it appears that the present monk seal popula- 
tion is about the same size as in the early 1980s — 
perhaps 1,500 to 1,600 animals. While it is encour- 
aging that the population has not dropped further 
below the level reached in the early 1980s, trends 
over the past ten years underscore the species’ contin- 
uing precarious state. 
Following a brief increase in the number of seals 
in the mid-1980s, overall counts again declined late in 
the 1980s and early in the 1990s. Most of the recent 
decrease can be attributed to a decline of perhaps 20 
to 25 percent in the number of seals at French Frigate 
Shoals and Laysan Island between 1988 and 1992. 
The decline at French Frigate Shoals is reflected by 
decreases in mean beach counts of juveniles, juvenile 
survival rates, and growth rates for pups and juve- 
niles. The information strongly suggests this group 
has been limited by food availability. Unlike French 
Frigate Shoals, however, food does not appear to be 
a limiting factor at Laysan Island, and the cause of the 
decline there is not apparent. As discussed below, 
mobbing behavior by male seals has been identified as 
a factor preventing recovery of the seal population at 
this location. 
Also during the recent decline, there was a marked 
decrease in the number of pups born. The decline 
occurred at most major breeding islands in 1989 and 
27 
Chapter III — Species of Special Concern 
at all major breeding islands in 1990. In 1991 and 
1992, however, the number of births increased at 
most locations to levels approaching those observed in 
1988. These data suggest that a regional environmen- 
tal phenomenon somehow may have affected the 
species throughout its range in 1989 and 1990. 
Factors limiting the recovery of Hawaiian monk 
seals likely include a combination of human and 
natural causes that differ from island to island. 
Among these are interactions with commercial fishing 
gear and fishermen, declines in available prey due to 
over-fishing and natural environmental changes, 
entanglement in lost or discarded nets and other 
marine debris, human disturbance on haulout beaches, 
die-offs due to disease or naturally occurring bio- 
toxins, shark predation, entrapment in a decaying 
seawall on Tern Island at French Frigate Shoals, and 
attacks on adult females and juveniles at Laysan and 
Lisianski Islands by overly aggressive groups of male 
seals attempting to mate (i.e., “mobbing”). 
Hawaiian Monk Seal 
Program Review Follow-up 
Since the late 1970s the Marine Mammal Commis- 
sion and its Committee of Scientific Advisors have 
held a series of Hawaiian monk seal program reviews 
to evaluate progress on research and management 
activities and to identify priority needs. The reviews 
have been held in cooperation with the National 
Marine Fisheries Service, the Fish and Wildlife 
Service, and other involved agencies. 
The most recent review was held on 5-6 November 
1991 at the Service’s Southwest Fisheries Science 
Center. It was scheduled prior to a Hawaiian Monk 
Seal Recovery Team meeting planned for 15-17 
January 1992 in order to provide the team and the 
Service with an analysis of critical issues and priority 
needs. The results of the review were provided to the 
Service by letter of 20 December 1991, a copy of 
which was sent to each team member. 
Points raised in the Commission’s letter were 
reviewed during the Recovery Team meeting, which 
was attended by an observer from the Commission’s 
Committee of Scientific Advisors. By letter of 11 
