118 



Why is the Act's definition of "harass" implemented by regulations that include deterrence as 

 a form of harassment? Why should a citizen need to secure some permit from the federal 

 government to scare a mammal away from a sportfishing boat? Should a government agent be 

 the only person with authority to chase mammals away from docks, ferry terminals, net pens, 

 locks, dams, etc.? 



Why has no state agency accepted management authority as provided in Section 109 (except for 

 walrus in Alaska between 1976-1979, whereupon the state declined the authority they had 

 recently received)? Even though the Act was amended in 1981 to streamline the process of 

 transferring management to the states, no West Coast state intends to request the authority. 

 Federal standards are still too burdensome, too costly, and too restrictive of management 

 options. 



Why has the Marine Mammal Commission argued for "historic" carrying capacity (a key 

 component of determining OSP and interpreting ecosystem balance). This presumes an 

 environment that existed before man began using components of the ecosystem, such as fish, for 

 human food. The use of historic rather than current carrying capacity jeopardizes fisheries, 

 zonal management of mammals, and in general the goal of incorporating consumptive human 

 uses into ecosystem management. 



What has NMFS tried to gain by regulating against the feeding of marine mammals (arguing it 

 is an illegal "take") and why have they attempted to curtail "whale watching" activities? Would 

 not their limited resources be better focused on mammal populations that are precariously 

 declining - before those populations are listed under the Endangered Species Act? 



Why doesn't the Administration assert itself as manager of the Nation's living marine resources 

 and propose legislative solutions to the symptoms and problems? To date they have responded 

 to the single issue of interaction between commercial fisheries and mammals (as required by 

 Section 1 14(1)(3) of the 1988 amendment) with a bureaucratic nightmare that throws a significant 

 number of fishermen (far more than the current Interim Exemption Program) into permits, fees, 

 quotas, allocations, excessive monitoring and less deterrence. 



They have proposed no solution to the growing conflicts with robust populations. In fact, they 

 have left commercial fishermen with the burden of trying to "manage" these increasing 

 populations. In its April 1992 Report to Congress on Washington State Marine Mammals, 

 NMFS states "Although several studies (Beach et al. 1985, Gearin et al. 1988b) have 

 recommended NMFS consider taking actions to resolve marine mammals/fisheries conflicts, 

 NMFS believes that, at this time, the methods available to commercial fishermen to deter marine 

 mammals are the most cost effective approach. " Fishermen, however, face severe penalties for 

 violating the take provisions of the Act. It appears government is neglecting some of its 

 management responsibility. 



