11 



Finally, we would like to urge the Committee to examine the 

 record of the Marine Mammal Exemption Program that has been 

 in place for the last five years. We took a hard look at it and we 

 learned a number of lessons from it that we tried to integrate into 

 our proposal. They are these: 



Education appears to be more effective than enforcement in 

 bringing participants into a program and keeping them in compli- 

 ance. So we would like to make people part of the solution and 

 urge you to integrate that into your proposal. 



Next, while observers contribute significantly to our understand- 

 ing of the nature of interactions, we have very limited resources, 

 and we should also give ourselves the opportunity to use alterna- 

 tives to on-board observers. 



There are a number of other smaller issues which we will pro- 

 vide to the Committee in writing. 



We thank you for this opportunity. We look forward to working 

 with you to bring this bill to conclusion by the deadline. 



Mr. Studds. Thank you. 



[The statement of Ms. Iudicello can be found at the end of the 

 hearing.] 



Mr. Studds. Next, Mr. Brad Gilman, General Counsel, Gulf of 

 Alaska Coalition. 



STATEMENT OF BRAD GILMAN, GENERAL COUNSEL, GULF OF 

 ALASKA COALITION 



Mr. Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 



I have submitted my written comments for the record. I would 

 like to start out by responding to some of the comments I have 

 heard today. First with respect to Mr. Saxton and Mr. Young. 



I do not believe that this is a contentious and emotional issue. I 

 think everybody at this table has been talking for nine or ten 

 months. We all agree on the general goals that need to be accom- 

 plished under MMPA. We need an effective mammal conservation 

 regime. We need an effective regime to encourage the reduction in 

 accidental takes in commercial fishery, and we need to eliminate 

 the right to shoot animals off the stern deck. Those are fundamen- 

 tal agreements that get lost in the confusion over how to technical- 

 ly draft the bill. 



That is really what we are doing right now, in the next two 

 months, coming to an agreement on a technical draft of a bill that 

 will work and how to prioritize the use of our resources in an effec- 

 tive manner. So, I personally don't think we have in an emotional 

 confrontation. This is something we can work out in the next 60 

 days. 



Second, we oppose the Fisheries Service concept that you need to 

 develop a permitting regime to regulate accidents in the commer- 

 cial fishing industry. This has never been, as a practical matter, 

 the tool used by the MMPA on accidental takes. 



Prior to the Kokechick decision, you had to submit a permit re- 

 quest for small takes. This was a pro forma thing. It was submitted 

 by associations and large groups. It was done as a matter of course. 

 There was no burden to bear really. Maybe there was a theoretical 

 and abstract burden under the law, but it was no real true burden. 



