MARINE MAMMAL COMMISSION - Annual Report for 1998 



would be better off being euthanized than being 

 transferred to a foreign facility that was ill-equipped 

 to maintain animals in captivity. 



After its November 1996 annual meeting, the 

 Commission again wrote to the Animal and Plant 

 Health Inspection Service about the export of marine 

 mammals from the United States. In its 18 December 

 1996 letter, the Commission noted that the Service 

 was continuing to base comparability determinations 

 solely on written submissions and it reiterated the 

 views expressed in its 8 September 1994 letter that a 

 foreign facility could and should be required to accept 

 and pay for an inspection as a condition of obtaining 

 marine mammals from the United States. 



The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

 responded to the Commission on 8 January 1997. 

 The Service stated that, although it does not have 

 authority under the Animal Welfare Act to inspect 

 facilities outside the United States and its territories 

 officially, it would be willing to consider sending 

 inspectors to foreign facilities for purposes of deter- 

 mining comparability with Animal Welfare Act 

 standards if it is invited to do so by the foreign 

 government and if the expenses associated with the 

 inspection are covered. The Service noted that if a 

 deficiency is found, it does not have authority to 

 compel correction. The Service also questioned the 

 need for on-site inspections of foreign facilities 

 because it is unaware of any problems associated with 

 the care of inarine mammals exported in the past. 



The Commission also wrote to the National Marine 

 Fisheries Service on 18 December 1996 about the 

 export of marine mammals. The Commission noted 

 that, because of the current requirements of section 

 104 of the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the 

 Service has little choice but to require a comity 

 statement or to implement some other mechanism to 

 ensure continuing jurisdiction over foreign facilities 

 that receive marine mammals from the United States. 

 Nevertheless, the Commission noted that, given 

 existing funding, it is unrealistic to assume that the 

 National Marine Fisheries Service will be able to 

 adequately monitor compliance by foreign facilities or 

 take remedial actions if problems are detected. The 

 Commission therefore suggested that it might make 

 sense if the Marine Mammal Protection Act were 



amended to eliminate continuing jurisdiction over 

 marine mammals once they are exported but to 

 strengthen the mechanisms for ensuring comparability 

 before authorizing an export. 



The National Marine Fisheries Service responded 

 to the Commission on 19 August 1997. The Service 

 provided strong support for requiring on-site inspec- 

 tions of foreign facilities and agreed that the issue 

 might best be addressed through amendment of the 

 Animal Welfare Act or the Marine Mammal Protec- 

 tion Act. Until this occurs, however, the Service 

 noted that requiring a comity statement and a certifica- 

 tion of accuracy from the foreign government, com- 

 bined with a comparability recommendation from the 

 Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, remained 

 reasonable requirements consistent with the export 

 provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act. 

 The Service is working to draft a proposed rule 

 regarding public display permits, including trans- 

 fer/transport requirements. These will cover both 

 foreign and domestic facilities. The Service intends 

 to publish the proposed rule in 1999. 



Release of Captive Marine Mammals 

 to the Wild 



Over the past few years, there has been increased 

 debate over the return of long-term captive marine 

 mammals to the wild. Whether such releases are in 

 the best interests of the animal is questionable, and the 

 procedures for preparing animals for release are still 

 experimental. It is generally thought that release of 

 long-term captive animals should be pursued only with 

 adequate monitoring and in accordance with an appro- 

 priate research protocol, pursuant to a scientific 

 research permit. 



The Commission on 30 November 1994 wrote to 

 the National Marine Fisheries Service, recommending 

 that the Service refrain from considering any permit 

 application seeking authority to release marine mam- 

 mals to the wild until objective, generally accepted 

 criteria had been developed for judging when release 

 is appropriate. The Commission reiterated this 

 recommendation in a letter to the Service on 6 De- 

 cember 1996. The Commission further recommended 



204 



