149 



range, but not necessarily both. Studies done by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service do not indicate 

 that recovery will require expansion throughout the entire length of California's coastline. The 

 direction in which expansion is encouraged will determine the effect on commercial fisheries. 

 Shell fishery interests from Pt. Conception south could be safeguarded if otters are encouraged 

 to expand to north coast habitat. Alternatively, north coast fisheries could be safeguarded if sea 

 otter expansion is allowed to the south of Pt. Conception. It is necessary to allow otter 

 populations to expand their range if they are to recover to pre-exploitation numbers, as is 

 mandated by the ESA and the MMPA. However, once recovery has been achieved, decisions 

 will have to be made about what parts of the coast are "saved" for sea otters and what parts for 

 fisheries and how this is to be accomplished. 



We wish to re-emphasize that under both the MMPA and the ESA, recovery takes precedence 

 over commercial interests. As stated in question #1, above, we support expanding research 

 efforts on conflict avoidance to investigating this situation so that reasonable plans can be made. 



For further information on sea otters and implications of P.L 99-625, we refer you to our 

 colleagues at Friends of the Sea Otter. They can be reached in Carmel California at (408) 373- 

 2747 or at P.O.Box 221220 Carmel Ca. 93922 



Questions Pertaining to Lethal Takings. 



Should H.R. 2760 specifically prohibit intentional shooting of marine mammals? 



The answer to this question is "yes". In negotiations, fishing interests agreed to support this 

 provision. Since both conservation interests and fishing interests agree on this point, it is 

 difficult to argue against its inclusion. 



The Pinniped Interaction Task Force 



1 ) Adequacy of provisions to address fisheries interactions. 



We were part of the negotiations with fishing interests that resulted in the Task Force 

 concept. We supported institution of this Task Force to address the protection of endangered 

 fish stocks from potentially devastating interactions with individually identified pinnipeds. We 

 do not support its use to protect commercial interests. The legislation (H.R. 2760) itself does 

 not exclude either situation. 



2) Need for the Task Force. 



There is a growing perception on the part of fishing interests that pinnipeds are having a 

 devastating effect on fish stocks. We do not believe that research supports this notion (see end 

 note below). However, we were willing to support the constitution of a Task Force to evaluate 

 applications outlining conflict situations. The Task Force would provide an official mechanism 

 to evaluate the nature and extent of any perceived problems and would be able to recommend 

 possible solutions. 



3) Need for More Specifics in the Task Force. 



As we have previously stated, we believe that the Task Force should only address those 

 situations in which there is a pinniped interaction that may be posing a threat to the survival of 

 a fish stock. The MMPA is designed to protect marine mammals, not marine fisheries. As 

 stated in our testimony, we also feel that the Task Force deliberations should be initiated by an 

 applicant who brings before the task force, all necessary evidence on the nature and extent of 

 the interaction. It is not clear in H.R. 2760 how this process is initiated. This aspect could be 

 made more clear by requiring that task force deliberations be initiated by an application which 

 contains all information necessary to evaluate the interaction. 



