81 



10 



of marine mammals, and for tracking transfers, the chances that 

 animals could be substituted for other animals or could be housed 

 in sub-standard facilities are increased. Likewise, there would 

 be no data base for estimating survival rates of marine mammals 

 in captivity. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has 

 no comparable inventory and tracking system. 



Another consideration weighing in favor of joint authority 

 for captive marine mammals is differential coverage under the two 

 statutes. The Animal Welfare Act applies to all animals held by 

 licensed facilities in the United States. The Marine Mammal 

 Protection Act applies to all facilities holding marine mammals 

 under permit. The Animal Welfare Act governs the care and 

 maintenance of "pre-Act" marine mammals not covered by the Marine 

 Mammal Protection Act. On the other hand, the Marine Mammal 

 Protection Act applies to foreign facilities maintaining marine 

 mammals under U.S. permits and to domestic facilities that, 

 because of compliance problems, may have lost their exhibitors 

 licenses. 



In sum, the responsibilities of the three agencies with 

 authority for captive marine mammals are largely complementary. 

 The interagency agreement works working well and there is little 

 duplication of effort under the two statutes. Therefore, the 

 Commission recommends that Congress take whatever steps are 

 necessary to clarify that jurisdiction over captive marine 

 mammals is intended to be provided under both the Animal Welfare 

 Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act. 



Both the American Association of Zoological Parks and 

 Aquariums and the Humane Society also advocate an amendment with 

 respect to interactive display of marine mammals such as swim- 

 with-the-dolphin programs and petting pools. The American 

 Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums supports an 

 amendment to authorize interactive exhibition of animals, while 

 the Humane Society believes that all direct contact between the 

 public and captive marine mammals should be prohibited. 



The legislative history of the Act recognizes that there is 

 a diversity of public display facilities and calls upon the 

 Secretary to recognize and foster this diversity. Further, 

 Congress has never seen a need to define what constitutes "public 

 display" other than to require that an acceptable facility offer 

 a program for education or conservation that meets industry 

 standards and that the facility be open to the public on a 

 regularly scheduled basis. Within this framework several types 

 of interactive displays can be and have been authorized. 



The Commission believes that interactive displays can 

 enhance educational opportunities and supports retention of 

 agency discretion to authorize such displays in appropriate 

 instances. There should not, however, be a blanket authorization 



