58 



and the options being discussed. Any proposed option which cannot bear public scru- 

 tiny can be revealed to the Secretary or his delegated representatives at any time. 

 The Secretary is not obligated to adopt a recommendation for which there is no sub- 

 stantive basis. 



The last concern is the potential for stakeholders to have species-specific or re- 

 gion-experts participate in the Scientific Evaluation Working Group, the peer review 

 process for the data used in the Matrix and the establishment of the Calculated Re- 

 moval Level, (explained below). There is concern that stakeholders would use sci- 

 entists on retainer to try and unfairly influence the data used by the Secretary and 

 the conservation teams. The Negotiators do not believe that participation of sci- 

 entists employed by the stakeholders would result in this outcome. 



The question which should be asked is instead whether the scientist in question 

 has species-specific or region -specific expertise. If so, the insights would have value 

 for the members of the Working Group in the ongoing course of their peer review. 

 The Working Group would not be responsible for making management decisions or 

 analyzing raw data. Peer review is instead a sounding board to identify the 

 strengths and weaknesses of the scientific assumptions relied upon, and to identify 

 significant gaps in necessary information. 



To the extent that such scientists participate in the peer review, the Coalition be- 

 lieves that the various stakeholders should bear their cost of participation. 



Response to Critical Stock Interactions 



Conservation teams and the Secretaryr have certain prescribed timeframes for pre- 

 paring and approving conservation plans. These timeframes vary depending on 

 whether estimated total lethal takes are above the Calculated Removal Level (^ier 

 1 response") or below the Calculated Removal Level ("Tier 2 response"). (Response 

 to Critical Stocks, pp. 13-15). ("Calculated Removal Level, pp. 7 note, 10). 



All resource management tools are available to the Secretary to achieve the statu- 

 tory benchmarks. There are no mandatory management methods which are to be 

 applied in all cases, instead the conservation teams and the Secretary are given 

 complete discretion to devise a long-term strategy to bring total lethal takes below 

 the Calculated Removal Level and to achieve insignificant mortality rates of inci- 

 dental takes in the commercial fisheries. (Conservation Teams, pg. 12). 



The use of discretion over tool-specific mandates was adopted by the Negotiators 

 in recognition of the extreme diversity within the various regions of the country, and 

 among the various fisheries or other user groups. The adoption of uniform national 

 standards over situation-specific conservation regimes would in many cases cause 

 confusion, frustration, and lead to ridiculous results. In some cases rigid national 

 performance standards may require the closure of fisheries when the level of inter- 

 actions would not justify such results. In other cases, mandatory requirements are 

 unrealistic and cannot be achieved (see below under "Issues in Dispute"). 



This is not to say that conservation measures could not be draconian in nature. 

 When an industry sector is refusing to cooperate with a conservation team or the 

 Secretary and is clearly not seeking to change behavioral patterns in a manner con- 

 sistent with its statutory obligations, a conservation team may use fishery-specific 

 lethal take limits or time/area closures to coerce compliance. To the extent that the 

 statutory mandates can be encouraged instead of coerced, however, a range of other 

 tools are available to the conservation teams and the Secretary. These include edu- 

 cational efforts, workshops, expert skipper panels, development of alternative gear, 

 and incentive programs. The intent of the Negotiators is to create an atmosphere 

 of maximum flexibility to foster creativity and reduce confrontation. 



One issue which continues to arise is the lack of a mandatory, centralized reg- 

 istration system for all fishermen. A number of animal rights groups have raised 

 this issue as a serious failure because it does not provide NMFS with the ability 

 to monitor mammal stocks and fishermen interaction in a comprehensive fashion. 



It is true that the proposal does not call for a mandatory registration regime. Cen- 

 tralized registration would not necessarily provide any further enhancement of the 

 conservation goals of the MMPA. NMFS attempted to develop a centraUzed data 

 base, but the magnitude of the data gathering responsibilities has made the central- 

 ized system ineffective as a means of comprehensively monitoring and managing 

 interactions with marine mammals. Included in this program would be the continu- 

 ation of the mandatory logbook program and some minimum level of mandatory ob- 

 server coverage for all fisheries. 



It is ridiculous and unfair to require fishermen who have little, if any, interaction 

 with marine mammals to engage in an annual registration drill. Logbooks have 

 proven not to be effective in monitoring interact ions levels. Some might argue that 

 there is value to mandatory registration, mandatory levels of observer coverage, and 



