46 



In this same context, it is important to recognize that the 

 Marine Mammal Protection Act's goal of rebuilding and maintaining 

 marine mammal populations at optimum sustainable levels cannot be 

 achieved unless taking from all sources is kept at or below the 

 Potential Biological Removal level. It also is important to keep 

 in mind that many animals which are seriously injured may 

 subsequently die, even though they were released alive. These 

 points are not clearly and consistently reflected in the Bill as 

 presently drafted. Lines 14-18 on page 10 of the Bill state, for 

 example, that: " [ i Incidental lethal takes for each marine mammal 

 stock shall not exceed the Potential Biological Removal level 

 established in the final stock assessment required under 

 subsection (c)." This can be interpreted to mean that serious 

 injury and non-fisheries related sources of mortality need not be 

 considered when determining the level of incidental fisheries 

 take that can be authorized. Although there is no mention of 

 serious injury, line 24 on page 13 and line 7 on page 15 refer, 

 in a similar context, to "total lethal takes" and can be 

 interpreted to mean that the intent is to ensure that the 

 combined take from all sources does not exceed the estimated 

 Potential Biological Removal level. 



It also is not clear from the Bill, as presently drafted, 

 who would be responsible for allocating take among fisheries and 

 other users when the total take, if not limited, would be greater 

 than the Potential Biological Removal level. Likewise, it is not 

 clear what procedures and criteria would be used to decide, when 

 necessary, how the allowable take should be allocated. One 

 possibility would be to make the Regional Conservation Teams 

 responsible for identifying, and recommending to the Secretary 

 how the total allowable take should be allocated among, the 

 various users when the total take otherwise would be greater than 

 the Potential Biological Removal level. To ensure consistency 

 with the provisions of the Act exempting taking by Alaska Natives 

 for subsistence purposes from certain of its prohibitions on 

 taking, it should be made clear that highest priority is to be 

 afforded to taking for subsistence purposes by Alaska Natives and 

 that no incidental taking in the course of commercial fishing 

 operations will be allowed if it would have an unmitigatable 

 adverse impact on the availability of the affected species or 

 stock for taking by Alaska Natives for subsistence purposes. 



The Bill would establish eight regional conservation teams. 

 The principal function of these teams, as the Commission 

 understands it, would be to develop plans for identifying and 

 encouraging changes in fishing gear and practices which will 

 reduce incidental taking to levels approaching zero. The 

 regional approach makes sense in that a number of the affected 

 marine mammal stocks are taken incidentally in more than one 

 fishery and the fisheries generally are managed on a regional 

 basis. However, it is not clear how the regional teams will deal 

 with situations where the affected stocks migrate between, or 



