16 



Section 7, the Pinniped Interaction Task Force. While we ac- 

 knowledge that there has been a growing concern with abundant 

 pinnipeds interacting with fish stocks, we believe that provisions of 

 this section should only be applied to those situations where pin- 

 nipeds threaten the survival of a fish stock, not to the protection of 

 commercial interests. 



We would also like to suggest that as this proposal currently 

 exists it may be a conflict of interest to require the Secretary to 

 both protect commercial fisheries from marine mammals and to 

 protect marine mammals from commercial fisheries. 



To deal with this conflict, we believe that the task force should 

 not initiate deliberations on interactions but rather an application 

 should be made to the task force by a party who could bear the 

 burden of demonstrating that a problem exists, documenting solu- 

 tions that have been tried and outlining ecosystem interactions. 



It would be the responsibility of the task force to assess the appli- 

 cation and then make appropriate recommendations to the Secre- 

 tary. 



Section 10, Definitions. We support the definitions of critical 

 stocks and maximum net productivity. We would like a clarifica- 

 tion under the definition of the PBR. We request that this be 

 stated as the maximum number of animals which can be removed 

 from a stock. 



We further request that the legislation make clear that PBR 

 should not be considered the maximum number that fisheries can 

 take, but the maximum number which can be killed by all sources 

 combined. 



We also wish to see it stated that fisheries with takes within 

 PBR must continue to decrease their rate of mortality toward the 

 zero mortality rate goal. 



With these clarifications, we strongly support the definition of 

 PBR. 



Also, we would like to address a point not raised in the proposal. 

 We would like to ask that the Secretary make a finding at the end 

 of four years as to whether or not the significant progress has been 

 made toward achieving the zero mortality rate goal. And if this is 

 not the case, regulations could be instituted to effect immediate 

 compliance. This would help provide some missing incentive for 

 voluntary reductions. 



The MMPA was passed in 1972 in response to the desire of the 

 public to intercede in the plight of marine mammals. At that time, 

 commercial whaling aroused public concern. The deaths of young 

 seals at the hands of commercial interests also aroused great con- 

 cern. The tremendous loss of life of small cetaceans in the nets of 

 the tuna industry aroused outrage. 



Since 1972, a number of these concerns have been addressed. 

 However, some of them still echo in the issues which we face today. 

 How is widespread public affection for charismatic pinnipeds to be 

 balanced against protection of commercial interests? How is the 

 loss of life of marine mammals incidental to commercial fisheries 

 to be reduced in a manner that preserves the way of life of fisher- 

 ies but also preserves marine mammal stocks? We believe this leg- 

 islation has gone a long way toward dealing with these pressing 

 issues. 



