50 



NMFS used the classic notice and comment process to develop 

 their proposal. Unlike our process, where affected parties worked 

 together to share a solution, the NMFS proposal failed to build 

 commitments, and is not a package we can buy into. The NMFS 

 proposal is overly burdensome, with MMPA and ESA authoriza- 

 tions, permits, et cetera. Their proposal fails to explicitly focus fis- 

 cal resources on the true hot spots of interaction. 



It tries to allocate too many quotas of marine mammals between 

 fisheries, which we think is impractical and in fact unworkable. 

 Their algorithm for potential biological removals is too conserv- 

 ative. And NMFS did not even attempt to address public deter- 

 rence or nuisance animals, and they danced around the tribal 

 issue. 



Mr. Chairman, we also know there are opponents to the manage- 

 ment regime proposed by the fishery and conservation commu- 

 nity — ^not from the fishing industry, but from certain animal wel- 

 fare groups. Frankly, I never expected that many of them would be 

 able to identify with our program. Their philosophy is overly pro- 

 tective, and their solutions are unnecessarily burdensome and ex- 

 pensive. 



So, in conclusion, we hope that you understand the tremendous 

 progress that was made by the negotiations, and that you identify 

 with that program, which is supported by so many in the conserva- 

 tion and fishing community. 



We from the Pacific Coast request that vou incorporate this pro- 

 posal with all of its components and subtleties into the Marine 

 Mammal Act. 



Thank you. 



[The prepared statement of Mr. Thomburgh follows:] 



Prepared Statement of Guy N. Thornburgh 



I am Guy Thomburgh, Executive Director of the Pacific States Marine Fisheries 

 Commission. I represent the interests of commercial, sport charter, recreational, and 

 tribal fisheries of California, Oregon, Washington, and Idaho. Diverse groups such 

 as Trout Unlimited, Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, Oregon Trawl Com- 

 mission, Pacific Coast Fisheries Legislative Task Force, and California Department 

 of Fish and Game (to illustrate just a few), all share a common approach to changes 

 to the Marine Mammal Protection Act. 



More marine mammals are taken incidental to our fisheries along the Pacific 

 coast than in the fisheries of the Atlantic or Alaska. This is not a boast, but serves 

 as an indication of the importance of our role in reauthorization. 



It also happens to be a fact that most mammal populations of our west coast are 

 NOT depressed (indeed, several oinnipeds populations are extremely robust). Our 

 fisheries are NOT jeopardizing tne well bemg of mammal populations, and many 

 fisheries now are actually negatively impacted by abundant populations of mam- 

 mals. 



A balanced reauthorization of MMPA is very important to us. We need to continue 

 the opportunity to catch the nation's surplus of fish while in the presence of marine 

 mammals; and we want to achieve some relief from the pressures of the expanding 

 populations of pinnipeds. 



The fish harvesters, anglers, and managers of our Pacific coast support the man- 

 agement regime proposed by the Conservation and Fishing Community Woricing 

 GSx)up, and we are here today to encourage you to accept this proposal in its en- 

 tirety and transform it into law. The proposal was difficult to formulate and it is 

 a tough pill to swallow for many in the fishing community. Yet we support it as 

 a compromise which serves the interests of the marine mammals, the conservation 

 conmiunity, and the fishing community. 



We compliment the commitment from those in the conservation community who 

 stuck with the fishing community throughout the entire exercise and who helped 

 fabricate the workable and tolerable compromise. 



