13 



STATEMENT OF DR. NANCY FOSTER, DEPUTY ASSISTANT AD- 

 MINISTRATOR FOR FISHERD3S, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND AT- 

 MOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF COM- 

 MERCE 



Dr. Foster. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and 

 members of the Committee. I am pleased to be here one more time 

 to testify before this Committee on aspects of the Marine Mammal 

 Protection Act (MMPA) other than marine mammal interactions 

 with commercial fisheries. 



The MMPA was passed over twenty years ago, we believe with 

 the objective of offering special protection and humane treatment 

 to all marine mammals, both in the wild and in captivity. 



Some years ago, back around 1988, we became aware of some 

 problems that we were having in administering our permitting pro- 

 gram and we began the infamous 5-year review of the permit pro- 

 gram. The review resulted in some administrative improvements 

 which we are trying to implement now and in a proposed rule. The 

 rule was aimed at clarifying and ensuring uniform application of 

 procedures and requirements. 



Today it would seem to us that we face two questions. First, does 

 the Marine Mammal Protection Act provide its special protection 

 for captive animals, and if so, is there a duplication of regulatory 

 responsibility among Federal agencies? Second, what and how 

 should permitted activities be handled dealing with marine mam- 

 mals in the wild? 



It is our understanding that the public display community be- 

 lieves that the MMPA's jurisdiction over marine mammals ends 

 after the animal has been removed from the wild. They also feel, 

 I think, that there is some duplication of responsibility, particularly 

 between the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), 

 NMFS, and the Fish and Wildlife Service. And they are suggesting 

 amendments to deal with this. 



Needless to say, we disagree with both assertions and in fact we 

 think that such amendments are unnecessary. We find it kind of 

 curious that we are here after 20 years of applying Marine Mam- 

 mal Act protection to captive animals and 20 years of working with 

 APHIS to discuss these particular questions. 



We do believe that the current law applies to animals in cap- 

 tivity. And we believe that our responsibility and APHIS's respon- 

 sibility are complementary rather than duplicative, and we think 

 that is borne out through our MOA. 



However, we also agree that since this question has come up it 

 has to be dealt with, that it is too important to leave for everybody 

 to interpret on their own. We agree that we should deal with it di- 

 rectly and we hope to see a clear statement of the intent of Con- 

 gress. We think that since this is the time when controversy over 

 public display continues, that it is critical that the regulated com- 

 munities and the public understand what laws apply to these ani- 

 mals and what Federal agency has jurisdiction and to what extent. 



Now looking into the wild, we have been very concerned with the 

 growing dissatisfaction among the research community about the 

 fact that they perceive that the regime under which they operate 

 is often more burdensome than that which we apply to the inciden- 

 tal take of marine mammals in commercial fisheries. 



