59 



mandatory logbooks in order to be able to determine whether fishermen are cheat- 

 ing on their logbooks. We disagree. 



Instead of establishing a comprehensive system, administered by NMFS at a cen- 

 tralized location, to detect whether fishermen heat on their reporting requirements, 

 the entire focus of the Federal process should be channeled at identifying the ma- 

 rine mammal stocks which are in trouble. For those stocks, a comprehensive system 

 would be developed, and the Federal resources would be limited toward establishing 

 a comprehensive database, reporting through logbooks if warranted, and observer 

 coverage. The database would be comprehensive with respect to the mammal stock 

 in question and those fisheries likely to interact with that stock. 



Trie Proposal would grant the conservation teams and the secretary with the au- 

 thority to assure that a system is in place to verify total fishing efiort and arrive 

 at estimates on the rates of lethal takes within the industry. Many fisheries are reg- 

 ulated under Federal and State permitting systems. One of the first tasks of the 

 conservation teams would be to evaluate the effectiveness of the two databases used 

 in the permitting process. To the extent that it can be accomplished in an be expedi- 

 tious and cost-effective manner, the two systems could be merged together to form 

 a comprehensive data base. To the extent that the systems are incompatible, or the 

 state is precluded from releasing the information to the Federal government for rea- 

 sons of confidentiality, the Proposal authorizes the Secretary to require MMPA per- 

 mits to verify effort. (Monitoring Program, pg. 17). There is no compelling justifica- 

 tion for a nationwide registration program. 



Alaska Native Subsistence 



Subsistence use of Alaska Natives is only at issue when the total lethal take level 

 of a Matrix Class 1 or Matrix Class 2 stock exceeds the Calculated Removal Level 

 and subsistence use is a significant component of total take. In such cases, it is criti- 

 cal that Alaska Natives become active players in designing a regime to reduce total 

 takes below the Calculated Removal Level. 



The Marine Mammal Protection Act provides the Secretary of Commerce (or Inte- 

 rior in the case of sea otters and walrus) with the authority to regulate subsistence 

 takes when the animal in question is depleted, threatened or endangered. In the 

 event that total lethal takes exceed the Calculated Removal Level ana the primary 

 source of take is Alaska Native subsistence, it is in the interest of the subsistence 

 users to take the manner into their own hands before there is a formal classification 

 of the stock as depleted, threatened, or endangered. Alaska Natives have had a 

 longstanding history of success in the SelfregulatiOn of subsistence when the long- 

 term viability of their subsistence resource is in question. The conservation team 

 concept was designed to maximize the Alaska Native community's desire for some 

 degree of self-determination. 



Additional flexibility has been built into the proposal when Alaska Native subsist- 

 ence is the primary source of mortality. Within the calculated Removal Level, a per- 

 centage "recovery factor" is included to assist in the recovery of the stock. This fac- 

 tor is a policy determination for the pace of the recovery. As part of the establish- 

 ment of the calculated Removal Levels for each mammal stock, the Secretary shall 

 assign a recovery factor. The Secretary will consider the policy ramifications of var- 

 ious recovery factor options through notice-and-comment rulemaking. When subsist- 

 ence takes are the issue, however, the relevant conservation team shall review the 

 impacts of the recovery factor on Alaska Native subsistence takes and may rec- 

 ommend another recovery factor, taking into account socio-cultural and economic 

 considerations. Any final decision of the Secretaiy must take into consideration the 

 needs of subsistence users. (Final Rules, pg. 10; Response to Critical stocks, pg. 13) 



RESPONSE TO NON-CRITICAL STOCKS 



These are the stocks which fit the description for Matrix Class 3 through 5. They 

 generally involve populations where lethal take levels are moderate or low and pop- 

 ulations are healthy. To the extent funding is available, attention may be directed 

 at Matrix Class 3 stocks in the future. (Matrix, pg. 8; Response to Non-Critical 

 stocks; pg. 16). 



By definition, the total lethal takes from these stocks do not exceed the calculated 

 Removal Level. The one remaining statutory benchmark is to meet the Zero Rate 

 Mortality Goal by reducing the incidental mortality rates within a given commercial 

 fishery to insignificant rates approaching zero. The Coalition believes that most fish- 

 eries interacting with these stocks are probably already interacting at insignificant 

 rates. It is the responsibility of each fishing group sector, however, to monitor its 

 own fishing practices to reduce interactions m order to ensure that it is meeting its 

 statutory ooligation. 



