42 



ties so that marine mammal populations can grow and recover to 

 their optimum sustainable population level. 



It is important to keep studying interactions so that we under- 

 stand better how to prevent them and avoid them, but what is not 

 important is to document and allocate body counts. That is one of 

 the reasons why we do not like the quota-based system, which basi- 

 cally says, this is the number of animals you may kill. Now you can 

 go fight about who gets to kill them. 



In our opinion, tne joint proposal gets to the real heart of the 

 matter, which is, is fishing-caused mortality the source of the prob- 

 lem that the marine mammal population is facing, and if it is, let 

 us get at that. Let us stop the takes. Let us reduce the interactions 

 to the point where the fishing-caused mortality is no longer the 

 principal source of a decline. We think our proposal will do that. 



In tne questions, we can illuminate some more of the details, but 

 for now I would just like to briefly say why we are confident that 

 this will occur. 



First of all, our proposal puts a focus on marine mammals and 

 marine mammal stocks and the effect of fishing-related inoitality 

 on them. We do not focus on fisheries except in that they interact. 



The calculation that we use to decide what we call the calculated 

 removal level of marine mammals is very similar to the one that 

 the agency has proposed. We took a lot of wisdom and advice from 

 their proposal on how they reached that calculation, and we think 

 that it is conservative in three ways — that is, risk averse. 



We use a best minimum estimated population abundance. We 

 use a minimum reproductive level, and we apply a recovery factor. 

 Third, we call for immediate reduction of takes below what the 

 agency would call the PBR and what we call the calculated removal 

 level. 



Unlike the agency proposal, which would take somewhere from 

 5 to 7 years to get takes below that PBR, our proposal would do 

 it immediately. 



The keystone of our proposal, no pun intended, and with great 

 gratitude to the facilitators who helped us reach it, is to reduce 

 fishing-caused mortality to insignificant levels approaching zero. It 

 is the principal objective of the MMPA, and it is an essential theme 

 of our proposal. We would request that it be mandated for all popu- 

 lations within 10 years, and our proposal suggests 3- and 6-year 

 checkpoints so that progress can be assessed. 



Our proposal, like the agency proposal, would focus immediate 

 attention and resources on what we have called critical stocks, 

 similar but not exactly like their alpha stocks, but over the long 

 term we recognize that the attention has to be on all marine mam- 

 mal stocks. With regard to the zero mortality rate goal, we provide 

 for secretarial action to reduce the takes from all stocks over time. 



The real difference here is that our proposal brings people to the 

 table — conservationists, fishing industry, and the agency — to come 

 up with a plan. The plan would be what it is that happens after 

 we come out with our calculation, and we think that the best way 

 to find out what you can do to reduce takes and improve fishing 

 behavior so that marine mammals are not taken, is to bring the 

 people who actually know how to do it to the same place at the 

 same time to work together. 



