57 



Testimony of the Center for Marine Conservation 



4. Clarify the relationship between MMPA and ESA. While the small take 

 authorization approach in the bill is a good start, the specific language leaves in 

 question whether the small take permit or the outcome of an ESA 17 consultation 

 will be the controlling factor.. It should be made clear that any small take permit 

 for endangered or threatened marine mammals is conditioned not by PBR, but by 

 the terms and conditions of the incidental take statement that results from the ESA 

 consultation and biological opinion. 



5. Make the regulatory focus more precise. It is unclear whether the approach in 

 the bill is aiming at all human caused mortality or fishing caused mortality. 

 Although the requirements are on fishing vessels that interact with certain stocks, 

 there appears to be no distinction made about whether fishing is the reason for the 

 problem. It won't do much good to regulate fishing vessels with a quota if the 

 source of mortality is found elsewhere. The regulatory focus of the program could 

 be made narrower yet by integrating consideration of the condition of the marine 

 mammal stock and the level of the fishing caused mortality. By registering, 

 observing, and convening conservation teams for nearly all the fisheries that 

 interact with marine mammals, the approach in the bill puts us where we've been 

 for more than 15 years: trying to do too much with too little. The results of the 

 MMEP point us to the problem areas, and we should hit those hard first. The bill 

 would be improved by a more precise priority-setting approach. 



6. Prohibit and penalize bad action, not sloppy paperwork. There are no 

 prohibitions in the bill on shooting marine mammals, on takes above PBR, or for 

 failure to reduce takes over time. The only requirements are administrative. As 

 such, the penalties appear to punish bad record keeping instead of bad fishing 

 practices, and will likely do little to reduce incidental mortality. At a minimum, 

 there must be a requirement to get mortality below PBR much sooner than required 

 by the bill. 



Finally, while we recognize that the Subcommittee is concentrating its 

 efforts on the incidental take elements of the MMPA, there are several other 

 important issues that emerged from our discussions with the fishing industry, and 

 on which we came to agreement. We mention them here for the record, and look 

 forward to early action on them as soon as you take up other aspects of the 

 MMPA during this reauthorization. Namely, a prohibition on feeding marine 

 mammals in the wild, a provision to enable citizens to use non-injurious methods to 

 chase marine mammals that are damaging private property, and, most importantly, 

 a consideration of the interrelationships of marine mammals with the entire marine 

 ecosystem. 



