90 



the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the temptation is great to put 

 together a coordinated financing package to finance both acts. 

 In theory, it is a laudable goal. During this reauthorization 

 especially, fishers are vulnerable to being nickeled and dimed to 

 death by all sorts of new fees and taxes that, might be necessary 

 to assist in paying for the program. We sympathize with their 

 potential frustration and would welcome coordination through a 

 single financing structure with qualifications. 



Our major concern with a single financing package is that it 

 has the potential to blend the solutions for the very different 

 problems we face under each statute, the Marine Mammal Protection 

 Act (MMPA) and the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management 

 Act (MFCMA) , together to the detriment of both. The problem 

 fisheries that need to be addressed in each of the acts are 

 different and therefore require different financing structures to 

 find solutions. We will fight any backdoor effort to subjugate 

 the goal of the MMPA to reduce takes to the MFCMA goal of 

 maximum sustainable yield. To be specific, there are some 

 sectors of the fishing industry who would like all of us to 

 believe that if there is insignificant interaction with marine 

 mammals, that the bycatch of all species is insignificant. 

 Therefore there is no need for an observer of any type. First, 

 that is not true. Second of all, that directly undermines one of 

 our top priorities within the MFCMA which is to establish a joint 

 federal government-fishing industry program to reduce bycatch of 

 non target fish to insignificant levels. This bycatch initiative 



