30 



sistence regulation which is none of your business, before a marine 

 mammal stock is declared depleted. If the stocks are in good shape 

 and the native community is jointly managing them, there is no 

 need for the authority. Why are you asking for new authority to 

 regulate subsistence? 



Ms. Beattie. We are not asking for new authority and I was 

 reading very fast so let me go over it slowly. We believe that the 

 way the law works now is substantially good. It does leave us in 

 a position of finding ourselves, if we are headed toward depletion, 

 of only having authority to develop regulations once we hit that 

 point. We have to go through a formal rulemaking process at that 

 point. It may be one or two years past the point the species has 

 hit depletion. We are not proposing additional authority. Our pro- 

 posal is not to apply the regulations any earlier than they would 

 be applied now, but only to have authority to begin to develop 

 them. We would of course begin to develop them with the involve- 

 ment of native people. A couple of things I did not get to talk about 

 because of the time limit were also a proposal we have to increase 

 our grants and give grants to native organizations for the study 

 and management of marine mammals. And I would hope that those 

 kinds of mechanisms, with which we have great success, would 

 come into play. 



Mr. YOUNG. Well, my concern is that under your proposal — I am 

 reading your — by the way, your answer and your written testimony 

 are not exactly the same, so I would suggest you review that very 

 closely. Why should Alaskan natives suffer under a minimum six 

 years of Federal management if the stock is found to be depleted? 

 What gave you the magic number of six years? Where did that 

 come from? 



Ms. Beattie. I am not sure where it came from but I think it 

 is a time of review and monitoring that people 



Mr. Young. In the meantime, as I said, I don't believe you have 

 any business being in subsistence. Period. I want you to know that. 

 If I have my way you are not going to be involved in it. But the 

 second thing is why do you want to ban the sale of oosicks? 



Ms. Beattie. Ban the sale of oosicks? 



Mr. Young. Yes, do you know what an oosick is? 



Ms. Beattie. Yes, I do. Our proposal is 



Mr. Young. For the audience, this is an oosick. This is an oosick. 

 Now, why do you want to ban the sale of this when only 3,000 wal- 

 ruses are being taken today, part of the subsistence provision. This 

 is part of craft from an animal. You prefer them to throw it away? 



Ms. Beattie. No, sir. We are not proposing the banning of it. The 

 question was should these be considered handicrafts if they are not 

 worked, if they have not been handcrafted in any way. 



Mr. Young. Well, has this been worked? 



Ms. Beattie. I believe if it has simply been polished, we would 

 say no. If it had been carved and otherwise decorated, we would 

 say yes. 



Mr. Young. But the difference is — what is wrong with having 

 this as part of the subsistence? Do you know of any case where the 

 walrus is being killed for the oosick? 



