15 



to offer our comments which support much of this bill, but also 

 raise concerns about some of the sections. 



Small Take Provisions. We do not feel that issuance of permits to 

 take endangered species subject to a section 7 consultation is ade- 

 quately protective of endangered marine mammals. Further, the 

 bill appears to override the ESA for threatened stocks as well. 



We propose instead that no permits be issued for the taking of 

 these animals. 



We also propose that in the event a vessel accidentally kills a 

 member of an endangered species, a mortality review panel would 

 be convened. This panel would review all of the circumstances of 

 the take and could recommend, where possible, methods to avoid 

 future mortality. Penalty would accrue only if the vessel was 

 shown to be fishing carelessly or violating previous recommenda- 

 tions of the review panel. 



This panel could also review general practices of the fishery and 

 could recommend against the use of certain practices or gear which 

 by their design are likely to result in endangered species being 

 killed. 



Section 118, Authorizing the Taking of Marine Mammals. We 

 support the proposals for the Scientific Working Groups and plans 

 for stock assessments. We are, however, concerned with the limited 

 registration of vessels which was proposed in that it will not be suf- 

 ficient to allow NMFS to adequately identify the nature and scope 

 of fishing activities. 



While the State of Alaska may have a very important and com- 

 prehensive registration system, I can attest to the fact that that is 

 not the case in the Northeast at all. Our knowledge of the universe 

 of fishing is quite limited and we require this sort of system. 



We believe that NMFS needs this data in order to carry out its 

 reporting responsibilities under stock assessments and to adequate- 

 ly design a monitoring program to assess the level of interaction 

 which may be occurring in order to determine if it is rising or fall- 

 ing or remaining the same. 



The lack of a universal registry will also prevent NMFS from as- 

 sessing adequate registration fees to administer the program and, 

 furthermore, will make impossible the imposition of user or land- 

 ing fees, which we feel are necessary to help support costs of the 

 regime. 



We support the use of the Regional Conservation Teams which 

 would recommend strategies for reducing mortality. We also sup- 

 port the monitoring programs which are described in the bill, al- 

 though we would like to suggest that some fisheries are currently 

 subjected to rates of observer coverage higher than the 20 percent 

 stipulated, and these fisheries should continue to be subject to in- 

 creased coverage without being able to claim that it is overly bur- 

 densome and unfair. 



We also believe that National Marine Fisheries Service should 

 have authority to charge fees for more comprehensive observer cov- 

 erage if that should become necessary. 



We strongly support the imposition of penalties such as the loss 

 of fishing rights for those who willfully violate provisions of the 

 act, including reporting requirements. 



