that you quoted for nondepleted pinnipeds. This came up during 

 discussions with some of the industry groups when they were talk- 

 ing about things that would be a severe economic impact on the 

 fisheries, and I don't have a specific example of what that would 

 be. But it would certainly be a case-by-case decision, and the 

 burden of proof would be on the person requesting the take to 

 make the case. 



Mr. Studds. I forgot the normal scientific name for seals and sea 

 lions. What are they? 



Dr. Foster Pinnipeds. 



Mr. Studds. I am sorry to hear that. So in that case, it isn't in 

 the event that one is attacked by one of those. Can you elaborate 

 on that a little bit for us? 



DR. Foster. I am sorry? 



Mr. Studds. I realize you don't know — you said can't envision a 

 specific instance because one hasn't been raised with you, but 

 elaborate a little bit on the situation in which the language as it 

 currently stands in your proposal would permit an intentional take 

 of whatever you call them. 



Dr. Foster. Pinnipeds. 



Mr. Studds. Pinnipeds, yes. 



Dr. Foster. You mean in the case of personal safety? 



Mr. Studds. No. I assume you are not going to be attacked by a 

 seal. 



Dr. Foster. Well, there are some fishermen who claim to have 

 been attacked by seals. I mean, seriously. 



Mr. Studds. I am sorry Mr. Young isn't here. Are you talking 

 solely, even in the case of pinnipeds, in instances of personal 

 safety, or are there other circumstances? 



Dr. Foster. Well, there is that other phrase that you quoted and 

 in the case of some severe economic situation with regard to a fish- 

 ery, but as I said, I cannot think of a good example. 



Mr. Studds. And can you say anything more about the process, 

 assuming you had whatever is a good example, and I am assuming 

 you had one 



Dr. Foster. Right. 



Mr. Studds [continuing]. Can you state to me what the process 

 by which that take would be authorized? 



Dr. Foster. It would be a rulemaking. 



Mr. Studds. It would be a formal rulemaking. OK. One of the 

 concerns we have heard from the environmental community is that 

 the Fiscal Year 1994 NMFS budget contains funding requests for 

 monitoring incidental takes and for stock research but no provi- 

 sions for gear research. Is that the case, and, if so, how come? 



Dr. Foster. There is no specific request for gear research. That is 

 correct. There is some ongoing work on gear research, however, out 

 of base funds. And then we are also looking — we are about to hold 

 a workshop on harbor porpoise, and as a result of that workshop, 

 we expect to get some suggestions for gear research which we will 

 then fund. We do have money in the budget for that this year. 



Mr. Studds. I have a question for Dr. Hofman, and I will hold 

 back for a moment. The staff informs me that a potential case like 

 we were discussing a few moments ago might be in the situation 

 where California sea lions are doing battle with salmon who them- 



