13 



STATEMENT OF JOHN GISSBURG, LEGAL COUNSEL TO THE COM- 

 MISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME, STATE 

 OF ALASKA 



Mr. Gissburg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the 

 Committee. 



This morning I will summarize three of the several topics that 

 are covered in our written testimony: one, incidental takes of criti- 

 cal stocks; two, vessel registration and data collection; and, three, 

 monitoring of marine mammal/fisheries interactions. 



First, the incidental take by commercial fisheries of marine 

 mammals needs to be addressed again by the Congress. The Inter- 

 im Exemption enacted in 1988 was designed to allow the National 

 Marine Fisheries Service to measure incidental take levels and 

 assess the status of marine mammal stocks. 



However, after five years and some $30 million focus on trying to 

 answer to the detailed and comprehensive system of regulating 

 marine mammal fisheries interactions, that approach is failing to 

 focus on the true problem areas, is lacking in basic population 

 data, is unduly complex, costly, and is duplicative. In Alaska the 

 NMFS methodology has failed to identify some marine mammal 

 stocks that are either in trouble or that have significant interac- 

 tions with fisheries. 



Since the act was first passed, Congress has recognized the com- 

 plexity of the issue and that it is inevitable that marine mammals 

 will interact with fishing. Therefore, mechanisms have been pro- 

 vided to allow some take of marine mammals during the conduct of 

 coastal fisheries. 



For example, the interim exemption enacted in 1988 was de- 

 signed to allow the National Marine Fisheries Service to measure 

 incidental take levels and assess the status of marine mammal 

 stocks. However, after five years and a $30 million focus on trying 

 to institute a detailed and comprehensive system of regulating 

 marine mammal /fisheries interactions, the approach is failing to 

 focus on true problem areas, is lacking in basic population data, is 

 unduly complex, costly and is duplicative. 



Thus, in Alaska, the NMFS methodology is failing to identify 

 some marine stocks that are either in trouble or that have signifi- 

 cant interactions with fisheries. An example would be the omission 

 of harbor seals from the NMFS list of critical stocks. 



At the same time, the NMFS methodology included some species 

 in Alaska that are not in trouble. 



Second, with regard to the vessel registration system being pro- 

 posed, Alaska and other States already have comprehensive sys- 

 tems to track and record the extent of fishing in State-regulated 

 fisheries. 



Further, under the MFCMA, the Federal Government, too, has 

 similar systems in the Federal EEZ off Alaska. 



In Alaska, there are two parts to this system: 



First, registration requirements giving permits to vessels and op- 

 erators by species, location of fishery, gear type and season of oper- 

 ation. 



Second, there are reporting requirements that provide statistical 

 information on all statewide fishing catches. 



