51 



WORKING GROUP PROPOSAL 



The highlights of this proposal from our perspective include: 



• A sincere focus of our nation's limited fiscal resources at resolving the few "hot 

 spots" of fishery/mammal interactions through the development of conservation 

 plans for "critical stocks" of marine mammals. Information collected from the 5-year 

 interim exemption program shows us there are but a few fisheries with truly signifi- 

 cant takes of mammals and there are a few populations of mammals that are de- 

 creasing for one reason or another. Conservation teams will tackle these problems. 

 The teams which we proposed are quite pro^essive — they would be regional in na- 

 ture, capable of focusing on not just one species, but several stocks at the same time 

 for an ecosystem approach; the teams would consist of experts from all affected par- 

 ties (government, fishing, tribal, conservation, etc.); and the tools available to the 

 teams would be diverse and contain teeth of "Jurassic Park" effectiveness to get the 

 job done (tools such as onboard observers, mammal quotas, and fishery closures). 



• The proposal reaffirms the MMPA goal for commercial fisheries to reduce seri- 

 ous injuries and mortalities to a rate approaching zero. If demonstrable progress is 

 not made within three years, the proposal empowers the Secretary to mandate 

 through regulations significant reduction in take to achieve the goal within 10 years 

 nationwide. 



• It prohibits any and all intentional lethal takes by commercial fishermen. We 

 would no longer remove mammals that cause substantial damage or loss to our gear 

 or catch, and we would no longer remove mammals to ensure personal safety from 

 animals-entangled in our gear. We agreed to this provision, with tremendous con- 

 troversy within our Pacific coast industry, but it was our key grade-off for other pro- 

 visions in the compromise. To assure this provision, we also agreed that firearms 

 could not be used to deter mammals from our fishing activities. 



• The regime for non-critical stocks (which are the majority of mammal stocks) 

 would include a rational system of authorization to take mammals in the course of 

 fishing operations, no mandatory quotas, no mandatory across the board observer 

 programs, and no fees. The use of logbooks, observers, permits, fisheiy restrictions, 

 etc. are, of course, still available at the Secretary's discretion even for these non- 

 critical stocks in order to assure their conservation. 



• The program explicitly recognizes the treaty rights of our Northwest Indians, 

 which include the subsistence, ceremonial and commercial use of marine mammals. 

 We anticipate in the future the co-management of mammals between the tribes and 

 NMFS. 



• Very important to our Pacific coast is the proposal to allow all citizens the legal 

 opportunity to non-lethally deter mammals from private property, such as harbors, 

 docks, and sport fishing boats. 



• Finally, yet just as significant as any other component of the agreement, is res- 

 olution of the issue of nuisance animals, (i.e., those animals identified as habitually 

 exhibiting behavior that cannot otherwise be deterred). This aspect of the deal is 

 a requirement long sought by our west coast and one we respect the conservation 

 community for accommodating. 



NMFS PROPOSAL 



We prefer the compromise proposal to the solution proposed by the National Ma- 

 rine Fisheries Service for the following reasons: 



• 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. 



• It IS overly burdensome with MMPA and ESA authorizations and permits, and 

 it still retains the concept of the authorization to fish under MMPA. (We strongly 

 believe the authorization to fish should reside under the Magnuson Act or state au- 

 thority, while the authorization to take mammals appropriately lies under MMPA). 



• The proposal fails to explicitly focus fiscal resources on the "hot spots" of inter- 

 action ana critical stocks of mammals. 



• Its "quota" system and resultant allocation of mammals between fisheries is 

 impractical and we believe unworkable. 



• The algorithm for potential biological removals is too conservative. 



• Finally, NMFS dia not attempt to address public deterrence or nuisance ani- 

 mals and they danced around the tribal issue. 



OTHER PROPOSALS 



Mr. Chairman, we all know there are opponents to the management regime pro- 

 posed by the fishery and conservation community — not from the fishing industry. 



