Agency would be able to accept if certain provisions could be in- 

 cluded in the bill. For example, if there were a statement in the 

 bill, something to the effect that the Secretary should err on the 

 side of conservation of the marine mammals in instances where de- 

 cisions are based upon insufficient information. 



Also, we think that the Secretary should have the authority to 

 take away a fisherman's authorization if the individual is convicted 

 of a violation of the management regime. In such instances, the au- 

 thorization could then be reinstated under a permit where the 

 person applies, the Secretary reviews in consultation with the 

 Marine Mammal Commission, and there is public comment. 



Under this kind of a system the person could then continue to 

 take marine mammals under that permit for a given period of 

 time, and, if there were no further violations, the general authori- 

 zation could be reinstated. We think this provision would be much 

 more consistent with the process that all other user groups have to 

 follow in order to obtain authorization to take marine mammals. 



The second point is a technical but significant point because it 

 deals with the MMPA and ESA. We think that under the bill au- 

 thorizing takes of endangered marine mammals under Section 

 10HAX4) it would still be inconsistent with Section 7 of the Endan- 

 gered Species Act because the ESA specifies that incidental taking 

 of threatened and endangered species of marine mammals has to 

 be authorized under Section 101(A)(5) of the MMPA. As I said earli- 

 er, I think this is just a technical problem that would be easy 

 enough to fix. 



Our third major concern is vessel registration. We have long be- 

 lieved that all vessels that interact with marine mammals, wheth- 

 er with critical, endangered, threatened, depleted or noncritical 

 stocks, should register. 



We also believe that the existing bill calls for information that is 

 going to be impossible for us to collect unless we register all vessels 

 that interact with marine mammals. 



I will give an example. For instance, the bill calls for assessment 

 reports for all stocks of marine mammals, and these assessments 

 reports require an estimate of the number of vessels in the inter- 

 acting fisheries. But the bill only requires registration for those 

 interacting with critical stocks. It would be impossible for us to do 

 this without registering other vessels. 



I could give other examples. The point is that we think registra- 

 tion of all these vessels is critical to our avoiding being here in the 

 same situation five or six years from now when our information is 

 then out of date. 



We don't mean to imply that the vessel registration for these 

 groups that interact with noncritical stocks has to be as rigorous as 

 the registration that is required for the others. For example, fisher- 

 men could register once and thereafter all they would have to do is 

 keep us informed of changes in the situation — if they sell their 

 boat, if they leave the fishery, or if they move into another fishery, 

 this kind of thing. 



Also, those fisheries that are registering that do not interact 

 with critical stocks would not necessarily have to pay the registra- 

 tion fee. So you could make it very simple and easy for those folks. 



