109 



within their Optimum Sustainable Population (OSP) range, as outlined in the original 

 wording and subsequent interpretation of the Act. Unfortunately, OSP determinations 

 are costly, time-consuming and, for stocks like harbour porpoises, often impossible to 

 make. As a population biologist, I find the OSP process cumbersome and unwieldy. 

 Fortunately, the NMFS proposal contains an alternative mechanism to estimate 

 allowable removals for each stock, the PBR process. PBR levels are admittedly 

 conservative, but I believe this approach is necessary because of the considerable 

 scientific uncertainty regarding the status of many marine mammal stocks. The PBR 

 process also circumvents many other problems faced in making OSP determinations, such 

 as the question of whether to use current or historical carrying capacity. 



The NMFS proposal will require continued monitoring of fisheries to document 

 take levels and enforce quotas. There are several important issues here. First, it is 

 important that NMFS should be allowed to place observers on board all vessels, except 

 those for which safety faaors preclude such monitoring. For these latter cases, remote- 

 platform monitoring may be necessary. Without this authority, it is possible that vessels 

 with high mammal by-catches will not be sampled in voluntary observer programs. 

 Second, we will need to develop real-time data collection systems to improve the speed 

 with which by-catch information can be made available to managers and the fishing 

 industry. Third, unless significant changes are made to the logbook system, so that 

 participants will benefit from the collection of accurate and timely data, this portion of 

 the program should be discontinued. And finally, it is critical that NMFS maintain a 

 flexible attitude towards enforcing quotas, should they be necessary. In complex 

 situations such as the Gulf of Maine, where participation in the gill net fishery is 

 seasonal and varies with region, universal quotas will not work. 



The stock assessment process, as outlined in the NMFS doomaent, should provide 

 an adequate long-term research program for providing assessments of most marine 

 mammal populations. Clearly lacking in the NMFS plan, however, is a similar long- 

 range program for mitigation of incidental mortality in fishing gear. It is not enough to 

 simply identify critical situations and expect the fishing industry to provide the solutions. 

 NMFS should develop a gear research program that can develop and test means of 

 reducing the number of marine mammals killed or injured in commercial fisheries. 

 NMFS should also suppon outreach and education programs that are designed to 

 increase awareness of marine mammal issues within the ^shing community. 



In closing, I would like to mention the Harbour Porpoise Working Group, of 

 which I have been a member since 1990. The group is a coalition of organizations 

 representing the fishing industry, environmental groups, scientific institutions, and 

 government (see Attachment). Our primary goal is to find ways of reducing the 

 incidental take of harbour porpoises in gill nets while minimizing impacts on the fishery. 

 TTie group is informal, and at times raucous, but by agreeing to this common goal we 

 have made considerable progress. In this reauthorization debate, your task is much the 

 same as ours: to reduce the incidental catch of marine mammals while minimizing 

 impacts on the fishing industry. I believe that a strong MMPA, incorporating the major 

 elements of the NMFS proposal, will go a long way towards achieving this goal. 



