60 



The Proposal would provide the Secretary of Commerce with the discretion to as- 

 sess population size of non-critical marine mammals or to monitor fishermen who 

 interact with non-critical stocks. The decision to monitor a non-critical stock/fishery 

 interaction is at the sole discretion of the Secretary. Such a decision may be a result 

 of information from non -governmental sources, from fishery observer data, or from 

 formal petitions from third parties for an investigation, fishermen must take Fed- 

 eral observers if requested by the Secretary under this program. 



Reasons for monitoring a non-critical stock might include changes in fishing prac- 

 tices; verification that the stock is noncritical; and verification that a specific fishing 

 group is meeting its statutory benchmark of achieving insignificant mortality rates. 

 The provision for non-critical stocks is, in essence, a preventive measure against a 

 stock being listed as critical due to fishing interactions. 



Reporting 



All fishermen are required to report lethal takes of marine mammals in the 

 course of their fishing operation. Reporting of such takes would not subject a fisher- 

 man to any violation. Failure to report lethal takes or serious injury would expose 

 the fisherman to penalties. The information obteiined from this reporting would be 

 made available to the Scientific Evaluation Work Group and to the public throu^ 

 the annual publication of the information. 



K the reporting results in a determination by the Secretary that there is an anom- 

 alous change in mortality levels, the Secretary is provided with emergency authority 

 to implement regulatory measures to arrest the increase in takes. K the mortality 

 levels are such that the animal may move from "Non-Critical" to "Critical" on the 

 Matrix, the Secretary has the authority to convene a conservation team in anticipa- 

 tion of this occurrence. 



Other 



Four other issues were addressed by the Negotiators, three of which are contained 

 in this Proposal and one of which was adopted separately. 



First, the proposal bans the intentional lethal killing of marine mammals by com- 

 mercial fishermen to protect gear and catch. The authority to lethally kill mammals 

 was authorized under the Interim Exemption. This prohibition represents a major 

 strengthening of the MMPA in practice. 



Many commercial fishermen were upset with the fishing industry participants 

 who agreed to this restriction. For many fishermen, it is difficult to watch the sig- 

 nificant destruction of gear and catch by mammal stocks which are robust and in- 

 creasing. These problems appear particularly severe in California, Oregon, Washing- 

 ton, and Maine. The Coalition was actively involved in the negotiations on this mat- 

 ter. We agreed to the prohibition on lethal killings because of the concessions made 

 by the environmental participants to provide flexibility to resolve problems arising 

 from the incidental take of declining marine mammal populations by commercial 

 fishermen. This must nonetheless be considered a significant concession on the part 

 of the commercial industry. 



Second, the Proposal provides the ability for citizens to protect property, and for 

 commercial fishermen to protect gear, to use measures to deter mammals, provided 

 such measures do not kill or seriously injure the mammals. If NMFS determines 

 that a certain practice in fact kills or seriously harms a mammal, the agency may 

 impose regulations to prevent such use. The Negotiators felt that citizens should 

 have some mechanism for minimizing the damage done by mammals if they did not 

 have the right to remove the creatures through lethal means. 



Third, the Negotiators specifically acknowledged that there is nothing in the 

 MMPA which defines the rights of the Pacific Northwest Treaty Tribes with respect 

 to their traditional hunting and fishing rights, as recognized by existing treaties 

 with the Federal government. 



Finally, a number of the participants in the Negotiations conducted a separate ne- 



fotiation to develop a sp)ecial regime for determining under what circumstances a 

 ederal or State wildlife manager may be authorized to lethally remove nuisance 

 pinnipeds. Information provided about the harm to fish stocks in the Pacific North- 

 west and aquaculture facilities in Maine provided a compelling justification for hav- 

 ing a process in place to permit the removal of individually identified pinnipeds who 

 have demonstrated habitual behavior, and are causing economic or biological harm. 

 This process contains sufficient safeguards to avoid abuse. While there are no cir- 

 cumstances in the Gulf of Alaska which warrant the use of this process in our re- 

 gion, the Coalition does support the proposed Nuisance Animal regime based on the 

 case that was made througnout the negotiations. 



