62 



for endangered or threatened species. The Secretary has the 

 authority under the ESA to require observations when necessary to 

 avoid jeopardy to threatened or endangered species. Observers 

 should be placed in fisheries which interact with mammal 

 populations in trouble which are not receiving the heightened 

 protection of the ESA. 



Second, mandated levels of observer coverage are not 

 necessary. The mandatory levels of observer coverage in the 

 current bill might encompass thousands of vessels nationwide. 

 Funding is simply not there for this level of observer coverage, 

 nor is there any policy reason for such a comprehensive observer 

 program. In consultation with the conservation team, the 

 Secretary should instead develop a verification regime that meets 

 the facts and circumstances of the fishery and mammal stock in 

 question. Funding should be directed at observing the mammals 

 stocks deemed most critical by the agency in any given fiscal year. 



Our Proposal provides the Secretary with the discretion to 

 identify the appropriate level of observer coverage, while 

 recognizing that the costs of observers must be balanced with the 

 need to perform population assessments, develop registries when 

 necessary to understand the fishing vessel participation, and fund 

 the conservation team. In some fisheries where the lethal 

 interactions are extremely high, we might very well need 100 

 percent observer coverage. In other fisheries where prior 

 observations have demonstrated low mortality rates, periodic 

 alternative observer programs to update rates of interaction may be 

 all that is necessary. 



5. Section 6(g). Penalties and Enforcement. 



The proposed penalties are too severe. They make no 

 distinction for the severity of the violation. Is it fair to shut 

 fishermen in New England down for thirty days for a first violation 

 for forgeting to put an MMPA decal in the wheelhouse? Is an 

 Alaskan fisherman in a state-regulated fishery that lasts only 

 thirty days to be made bankrupt because he failed to report a 

 lethal take and is caught? We strongly recommend that the 

 Committee use the traditional civil fines and not license 

 revocation to enforce the statute. The level of fine should be 

 commensurate with the severity of the violation. 



Our proposal did not discuss enforcement provisions, such as 

 civil penalties. We agree that this is an issue which should be 

 addressed so that the Secretary has the ability to enforce any 

 measures recommended by the conservation team and adopted through 

 regulation. 



6. Definitions Section. Factors defining "Potential Biological 

 Removal". 



