77 



and marina mammal take information , thay naad to know tha 

 number and natura of fishery operationa which may interact 

 with marine mammal e, and this would require a broad baaed 

 registry of veaaela. 



(o) a took Assessments 



We support a review of stock asseeemente by the Scientific 



Working Group, and a periodic review of theee assessments, 



including identification of areaa in need of further 



assessment. 



(d) Authorisation to Take Marine Mammals 

 We have five major areaa of concern within this section: 

 (l)We are concerned that this general authorization to take 

 marina mammals would shift tha burden of proof from the uaer 

 to the Secretary. The MMPA currently states that there ia a 

 moratorium on fishing unless the user can demonstrate that 

 there is no disadvantage likely to occur if a taking ia 

 permitted. Under this legislation, takinga are permitted 

 unless the Secretary can demonstrate that disadvantage is 

 likely to occur. We feel that this ahift in burdsn of proof 

 may lead to disadvantage to marine mammals and wish to see 

 the current moratorium on takinga remain in place, with the 

 user bearing the burden of proof that no disadvantage ia 

 likely. 



(2) Within this section we are alao concerned with the 

 registration provisions which only require registry of 

 vessels interacting with threatened, endangered, designated 

 depleted or critical stocks (section [A]). We have long 

 advocated the need for a central registry of vessels. We are 

 pleased to see that this legislation acknowledges the need 

 for vessel registry, however we would like to suggest that 

 all vessels be registered, not just those interacting with 

 threatened, endangered, depleted or critical stocks. 

 Without registration of all vessels, it may be difficult to 

 verify that vessels are reporting interactiona , and it is 

 difficult to assign random observer coverage to determine 

 that interactions are not increasing to a level which may 

 become critical without monitoring. Under the system which 

 is proposed fisheries with interaction problems which may 

 significantly disadvantage stooks which are not currently on 

 the critical stock list would escape registry, and would, 

 therefore escape monitoring and overaight. For example, KMFS 

 projected that the California Set Gillnet industry would 

 likely be a Category I fishery due to levels of interaction 

 with California harbor seals that would exceed the PBR. Yet 

 this stock is unlikely to be categorized as a critical 

 stock. Thus, this fishery would escape registration, 

 monitoring and oversight by a Conservation Team, and the 

 stock could be disadvantaged by an unregiatered fleet. Until 

 future stock assessments or other data indicated a 

 significant decline below maximum net productivity, NMF8 

 might be unaware of the problem and unable to aot to prevent 



