\ 
| 
' 
In many instances, marine mammals are major 
predators of fish. As restrictions on the killing of 
these mammals continue, the populations will grow 
and the consumption of fish will increase. There are 
instances where mammals eat valuable marine spe- 
cies: the California sea otter consuming abalone is 
one such instance. Alaska sea lions eating salmon, 
and both sea birds and marine mammals eating 
Alaska squid are other examples. 
The wildlife and mammal protection activities that 
conflict with fisheries are more complicated and 
represent the type of interrelated policy issues with 
which fisheries often are involved. The controversy 
over the Marine Mammal Protection Act’s restriction 
against the killing of marine mammals has been high 
since the Act was adopted in 1972. The tuna-porpoise 
relationship, which results in accidental drowning of 
porpoise during the catching of Pacific tuna, is the 
most widely publicized of these conflicts. The con- 
troversy has abated because of decreased porpoise 
kills, but it is not yet over. 
Government regulation of yellowfin tuna purse 
seine fishing to curtail the accidental drowning of 
porpoise has had several effects. It has been a factor 
in the recent transfer of six U.S. tuna vessels to for- 
eign registry. Yellowfin tuna imported to this country 
are subject to the provisions of U.S. law regarding 
porpoises killed in the course of foreign fishing oper- 
ations. However, former U.S. boats can harvest tuna 
on the high seas and ship their catch elsewhere with- 
out such restrictions. 
The solution to the problem has been to institute 
progressively lower quotas of porpoise kills rather 
than insist on an immediate moratorium. While some 
environmental organizations have protested this ap- 
proach, there seems to be general accord that it is 
reasonable. The U.S. tuna fleet is a distant-water 
fleet, and its modern vessels are one of the bright 
spots in U.S. commercial fisheries. The quota ap- 
proach has permitted it to continue to operate, 
although not without difficulty. At one point, the 
tuna fleet refused to go to sea in protest over the 
porpoise quotas. 
The allowable porpoise deaths to be permitted 
during the coming 3 years were announced by 
NOAA December 16, 1977. The quotas are 51,945, 
41,610, and 31,150 for the eastern tropical Pacific 
tuna fishing area during 1978, 1979, and 1980. The 
regulations, issued by NOAA, also require use of 
specific equipment and techniques to enable the por- 
poise kill to be reduced to the required levels. The 
requirements are enforced by NMFS observers who 
travel with the tuna vessels and make first-hand 
counts of dead porpoises. 
The kills in earlier years were estimated to be much 
larger, namely 310,000 in 1971 and 104,000 as late 
as 1976. Use of nets with strips at the top that allow 
the porpoise to escape and use of a “backing down” 
technique by purse seine vessels are credited with 
bringing about the current reduction. Industry de- 
veloped the new method, which represents an addi- 
tional expense. 
Another example of conflict is in Oregon where 
sea lions are moving into rivers and estuaries where 
they did not appear before. Angry commercial and 
recreational fishing people claim that the sea lions 
interfere with runs of salmon and steelhead. The 
State reports finding dead sea lions with bullet holes 
in their bodies.** 
Another of the many examples of conflict between 
marine mammal protection aims and fishery interest 
occurs in Hawaii. An effort to develop a spiny lobster 
fishery is complicated by the fact that the monk seal 
eats them. To protect the seal population, limits 
have been proposed on the taking lobsters. For in- 
stance, no lobsters are to be taken from within 18 
meters (10 fathoms) of the islands in the northwest 
part of the State of Hawaii where the seal lives. 
Complicating this issue is the fact the seals live on 
a wildlife refuge managed by the Fish and Wildlife 
Service, whereas the lobster fishery effort is being 
supported by the NMFS and the Sea Grant Pro- 
gram of NOAA.*” 
The Hawaii case is but one example of the com- 
plexities involved in wildlife management and fish- 
eries. The Endangered Species Act, aimed at per- 
petuating existing species of animal and plants, is 
an additional complication. Coordination among 
Federal Government agencies is required, Federal 
and State relationships are involved, and planning 
has to encompass a total environmental system so 
that the effects of protection of one species is con- 
sidered in relation to the rest of the populations. 
This sort of interdisciplinary and intergovernmental 
activity is not easily accomplished. 
Law Enforcement 
Enforcement of the Fishery Conservation and 
| Management Act of 1976 is the joint responsibility 
les the Department of Commerce and the Coast Guard. 
To enforce the Fishery Conservation and Manage- 
ment Act ashore, NMFS special agents make dock- 
side inspections of fishing vessels, fishing gear, 
catches, logbooks, and landing records. At sea, 
NMFS and the Coast Guard operate joint aerial and 
surface patrols as the means of enforcement. Shore- 
side enforcement activity focuses on U.S. fishers, the 
% From briefing memorandum for the Marine Fisheries Ad- 
visory Committee prepared by NMFS, February 1978. 
%® University of Hawaii, Sea Grant Newsletter, University of 
Hawaii Sea Grant Program, Honolulu, January 1978. 
I-24 
