18 



[The prepared statement of Ms. Young may be found at the end 

 of the hearing.] 



Mr. Studds. Thank you. You really don't have to rush. Those 

 lights do not apply to people from Cape Cod. 



Ms. Young. Now you tell me. 



Mr. Studds. Next is Dr. Andrew Read from the Woods Hold 

 Oceanographic Institution on Cape Cod. Dr. Read. 



STATEMENT OF ANDREW READ, VISITING INVESTIGATOR, 

 WOODS HOLE OCEANOGRAPHIC INSTITUTION, WOODS HOLE, 

 MASSACHUSETTS 



Mr. Read. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcom- 

 mittee, my name is Andrew Read, and I work as a biologist at the 

 Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution where I study the ecology 

 and population biology of dolphins and porpoises. I would like to 

 thank you for this opportunity to present my views on the manage- 

 ment of interactions between commercial fisheries and marine 

 mammals. 



We have several important conflicts between mammals and fish- 

 eries in New England. Foremost among these is the incidental take 

 of harbor porpoises in sink nets in the Gulf of Maine, which I will 

 discuss in some detail. We also have a significant incidental catch 

 of offshore dolphins in the swordfish driftnet fishery, and continu- 

 ing interactions between the endangered North Atlantic right 

 whale and fixed fishing gear. These two latter cases exemplify 

 some of the difficult issues surrounding this conflict. Dolphins 

 taken in the swordfish driftnets are poorly known, and we have 

 little or no information on their abundance or status. Entangle- 

 ments of right whales affect a highly endangered population for 

 which even a single mortality may have serious consequences. 



The most serious issue that we face, however, is the incidental 

 take of porpoises in groundfish sink gill nets. In the five years 

 since the start of the interim exemption program in 1988, we have 

 greatly increased our knowledge of the scope of this problem and of 

 the effects of these takes on the porpoise population. Our present 

 understanding is that these incidental catches are unsustainable. 

 NMFS has proposed listing this population as threatened under the 

 Endangered Species Act due primarily to the high incidental 

 catches in the gill net fishery. 



The most recent estimates of this incidental take are several 

 times greater than the PBR level outlined in the NMFS proposal. 

 Additional takes are also known to occur in Canadian waters and 

 in coastal fisheries along the Mid- Atlantic states. The New Eng- 

 land Fishery Management Council has adopted a goal of reducing 

 the take to two percent of the population within four years, but 

 this will not meet the proposed PBR level. 



Current research is directed at mortality reduction through time, 

 area closures, gear modification, or the use of deterrents. At the 

 present time, it is unclear which combination of these measures, if 

 any, might prove effective in reducing takes to the PBR level. 



In general, I support the concepts contained within the NMFS 

 proposal, and I believe that they will be workable in New England. 

 Clearly, it is time to institute some type of long-term management 



