29 



where the people wear other hats in my State in commercial fish- 

 ing for incidental take. 



Now, as a native I have a right to take species and you cannot 

 limit that take unless those species, the stocks and this is stocks, 

 are on a list as being threatened, endangered, or depleted. You can- 

 not stop me because you have a fear that they might be. The bur- 

 den of proof today is on you to prove, as far as the natives are con- 

 cerned, that they are either threatened, endangered, or depleted. 

 Do you disagree with that? 



Dr. Foster. No. 



Senator Stevens. Dr. Hofman, do you disagree with that? 



Dr. Hofman. I think that is accurate. 



Senator Stevens, Now, does your proposal change that for the 

 natives this year? 



Dr. Foster. No. 



Senator Stevens. Do you add another step for them? 



Dr. Foster. No. We have calculated the PBR, that is the poten- 

 tial biological removal, and it includes all human related removal 

 from the population, and we take subsistence uses off the top. And 

 subsistence rarely becomes an issue. 



Senator Stevens. Well, in the proposal fi*om the industry and 

 the environmental groups, there is a critical stock section for where 

 the total take is primarily conducted by Alaska natives who have 

 the right to use marine mammals for subsistence. The Secretary 

 would have the discretion to analyze the recovery factor and the 

 calculated removal level recommended by the conservation teams, 

 and use modifications to enable a longer recovery time based upon 

 social, cultural, and economic consideration. 



Now, it says, where the native subsistence is the primary source 

 of mortality, the recovery factor decision becomes a policy decision 

 about timing and the Secretary's actions shall reflect the needs of 

 subsistence users. 



Now, is that not proposing something that goes further than ex- 

 isting law? Does it give the Secretary greater discretion? 



Dr. Foster. It actually goes even a little further. It is a little 

 more flexible than our proposal and, as a matter of fact, one that 

 we are interested in because we were struggling. 



Senator Stevens. Your flexibility or my natives' flexibility. 



Dr. Foster. The flexibility for both. 



Senator Stevens. Where is the burden of proof now? No, I think 

 you are sajnng you want more authority to regulate the Eskimo 

 take of marine mammals. 



Dr. Foster. No, I am not saying that, not at all. What we are 

 saying is that under our proposal, when we get to those one or two 

 or three stocks where we have a problem because the subsistence 

 take is very high and is going to exceed or possibly bump right up 

 against the total take, that we would sit down with the native pop- 

 ulation and try to figure out a way that we could work with tnem 

 to help reduce take on everybody's part. 



But the negotiated proposal has an even more innovative ap- 

 proach to that which we are looking at really seriously because 

 what they are saying is when you reach that situation and you 

 bump up against the take ceiling, that you can sit down and evalu- 

 ate alternative ways to get to recovery of a marine mammal spe- 



