63 



The draft definitions of "critical stock" and "potential 

 biological removal" are both vague and may not give enough 

 flexibility to the Secretary to establish priorities with respect 

 to the use of available funding. 



In the case of "critical stock", a key test is whether or not 

 the stock is below its maximum net productivity level (MNPL) , which 

 is currently below the' lower bound of the OSP range. Presumably, 

 most marine mammal stocks are below this level, since the draft 

 NMFS proposal lists only 6 of 64 stocks at OSP. To determine 

 whether the stocks are "critical", we must then determine whether 

 a level of takes would "significantly delay" rebuilding to MNPL. 

 In its earlier proposal, NMFS defined a "significant delay" as an 

 increase of 10 percent or more. The current NMFS techniques for 

 assessing a stock's status relative to MNPL can theoretically 

 determine whether a stock is above or below that level, but they 

 cannot determine what MNPL is if the stock is below. We are faced 

 with the practical reality of California sea lions and 

 Washington/Oregon/California harbor seals, whose numbers have been 

 increasing at 6% to 10% per year for two decades and may now exceed 

 historic population levels. If NMFS cannot even determine MNPL for 

 these stocks, what level of takes will significantly delay progress 

 toward this elusive objective, regardless of whether or not we 

 agree on the definition of "significant"? 



The problem with "potential biological removals" is similar. 

 Either we assume that most populations are below MNPL and argue 

 what levels of take would "significantly delay" rebuilding toward 

 an unknown objective, or we assume that the status is uncertain and 

 face an unduly restrictive take regime. 



The practical result of this lack of clarity is that virtually 

 all marine mammal stocks could be considered "critical", and 

 virtually every fishery in this country should be required to carry 

 observers at some mandated level. A vast "observer bureaucracy" 

 would be created, and fishermen would likely be required to fund 

 it. 



In 1988 we assumed for the sake of developing a monitoring and 

 tracking program that fishery takes may be a principal cause of 

 marine mammal declines. The Interim Program has already shown us 

 that in most cases, the incidental rates of fishery take are low. 

 The proposed definitions, however, would continue to intertwine 

 incidental lethal take with the causes for mammal populations being 

 below OSP. The truth is that we will never have OSP determinations 

 for many animals, and need to move away from the concept for 

 purpose of developing a conservation program designed to meet the 

 Zero Mortality Rate Goal by minimizing accidental takes. 



We believe a definition of current carrying capacity must 

 accommodate man's sustainable use of fish as one of the human 

 caused factors which decreased historic capacity to the current 



