46 



In summary, while the Exemption Program had its difficulties, it accomplished 

 what it was supposed to do: gatner information on the extent of the problem. It is 

 now time to quit describing the problem, and start solving it. 



2. The Joint Proposal Offers a Means To Solve Real Problems 



From a conservation perspective, the thrust of any incidental take regime should 

 be to reduce fishing-caused mortality so that marine mammal populations can re- 

 cover to their optimum sustainable population. While further study of the nature 

 of interactions is important, conservation and protection of marine mammals is not 

 accomplished by refining, allocating, and verifying, marine mammal body counts. As 

 you consider the various proposals before you, we ask that you examine whether the 

 suggested requirements reduce takes, or whether they concentrate on accumulating 

 furtner documentation that they occur. 



In our view, the Joint Proposal gets to the heart of the matter: is fishing caused 

 mortality the problem? If so, reduce it to a level where it is no longer the principle 

 factor in causing marine mammal population declines or slowing their recovery. 

 This tight focus is the major distinguishing characteristic between our proposal and 

 the other ideas you have heard today. 



The Joint Proposal has a likelihood of succeeding in this goal because it retains 

 the goals of the MMPA, but involves affected parties at every step of way, it gets 

 priority attention and funding to the marine mammal stocks most critically affected 

 by incidental take, it is premised on application of the best available science, it re- 

 quires immediate reduction of lethal takes to a level that allows recovery to begin 

 and calls for further reductions within specified periods of time, and it represents 

 a hard won commitment from the fishing industry to stop shooting marine mam- 

 mals — a major cause of mortality in a number of fisheries. The conservation groups 

 who endorse this proposal are satisfied that the final negotiated product is an exam- 

 ple not only of good faith, but of good sense and good conservation. 



The negotiated agreement shares many of the elements of the NMFS proposal, 

 particularly with respect to its reliance on stock assessments, analysis of take, rigor- 

 ous peer review, ana use of a calculation to arrive at a marine mammal mortality 

 or "removal level" that will promote the recovery of the population. Unlike the agen- 

 cy proposal, however, our proposal takes the emphasis off calculating and allocating 

 quotas of dead animals, and puts the emphasis on reducing, avoiding, and prevent- 

 ing lethal interactions in the first place. 



The elements included in the Joint Proposal that we believe make it protective 

 of marine mammals are as follows: 



1. The focus is on marine mammals, and the effect of fishing-related mortality on 

 their populations, not on registering, categorizing, or allocating to fisheries. 



2. The calculation of the number of marine mammals that may be removed from 

 a population takes a conservative approach in estimating population and reproduc- 

 tive rates, and in applying a recover/ factor. 



3. Reduction of takes to the calculated removal level must take place immediately 

 for populations-of marine mammals deemed critical due to their population status 

 or trend, or current level of fishing related mortality. 



4. Reduction 6f takes to insignificant levels approaching zero — a principle objec- 

 tive of the MMPA — is not only the central theme of the proposal, it is mandated 

 for all populations within 10 years, with three- and six-year check points to assess 

 progress. 



5. While it focuses agency resources and immediate attention on marine mammal 

 populations most in need of protection, it provides for Secretarial action to reduce 

 takes from all stocks over time. 



6. It specifies a role for conservationists to work with government and the fishing 

 industry in devising and recommending conservation plans tailored to address spe- 

 cific regional problems, and emphasizes solving those problems close to the source. 



7. It provides these conservation teams the flexibility to recommend a wide vari- 

 ety of measures, including full observer coverage, permitting, or fishing closures 

 where necessary. 



8. Conservation team recommendations, and subsequent Secretarial action, must 

 be consistent with the MMPA's mandate that the measures wUl not disadvantage 

 the marine mammal population in question, and will be consistent with the pur- 

 poses and policies of the Act. 



9. Finally, it makes clear once and for all that shooting marine mammals is out- 

 lawed. 



These elements, along with built-in safeguards that call for Secretarial action to 

 reduce takes if the conservation plan measures are not achieving required bench- 

 marks, or if new gear or new effort pose unforeseen problems, make this proposal 

 workable from the conservation standpoint. Finally, the negotiating parties recog- 



