14 



Additional input comes from on-board observers. 



Creating a new and overlapping system just for marine mam- 

 mals would be duplicative and unnecessary and would be contrary 

 to the requirement of provision (f)(2)(D) in your act to minimize 

 costs and avoid duplication. 



Three, concerning monitoring of incidental takes of marine mam- 

 mals, we do not believe there should be a legislatively mandated 

 level of observer coverage for marine mammals only. Let's take ad- 

 vantage of the existing programs: In the north Pacific Ocean in 

 1992 there were 681 observers on groundfish vessels operating in 

 the EEZ while the State of Alaska had observers dispatched on 106 

 crab fishing trips totaling 4,331 days of observations. 



On floating processors there were 50 deployments for over 2,000 

 days of sea monitoring programs. The expertise existing in these 

 programs could and should be applied to the task of recording in- 

 formation on fisheries and marine mammal interactions. 



Thus, instead of creating a whole new program, the conservation 

 teams, for example, could designate fisheries for which marine 

 mammal information is needed. The Secretary could then approve 

 a verification regime that utilizes existing observer and data collec- 

 tion programs adapted, however, to the facts and circumstances of 

 the specific marine mammal stock or stocks of interests. The data 

 could then be collected in the course of existing observations. 



In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, with more than one-half of the 

 coastline of the United States, Alaskans have close ties to marine 

 resources. We are determined that they be managed effectively and 

 conserved as well. We recommend that this be done by amending 

 the present bill to reflect the negotiated proposal more closely. 



Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony on 

 behalf of the State of Alaska. 



Mr. Studds. Thank you. 



[The statement of Mr. Gissburg can be found at the end of the 

 hearing.] 



Mr. Studds. Ms. Sharon Young on behalf of the Marine Mammal 

 Protection Coalition, and I gather some other organizations as well. 



STATEMENT OF SHARON B. YOUNG, WILDLIFE CONSULTANT TO 

 THE INTERNATIONAL WILDLIFE COALITION AND THE HUMANE 

 SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES 



Ms. Young. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am a wildlife consult- 

 ant for the International Wildlife Coalition, headquartered in Fal- 

 mouth, Massachusetts. I appreciate the opportunity to testify today 

 on behalf of the International Wildlife Coalition and the Humane 

 Society of the United States and a coalition of 15 other organiza- 

 tions. We have submitted more detailed written testimony. 



In 1988, Congress authorized a five-year interim exemption pro- 

 gram within the Marine Mammal Protection Act. The exemption 

 program was not intended to weaken the MMPA but rather to pro- 

 vide a period in which to gather data to assist in developing a 

 regime to reduce fisheries-related mortality in marine mammals to 

 an insignificant level approaching zero. 



We are very pleased to note that this legislation largely address- 

 es many concerns raised about previous proposals. We would like 



