23 



explore now: Whether or not circumstances have changed. But the 

 underpinning of the MMPA was that there shall be no takes, un- 

 less you can demonstrate the need for the take. Not that you can 

 take whatever you want, unless the Government demonstrates why 

 not. 



Senator Kerry. Now, assuming that you were to stick with the 

 original concept, and I am not asserting any reason not to, I am 

 just saying assuming you do, you accept a continued concept that 

 there is a legitimacy in the taking of nuisance mammals; is that 

 correct? 



Dr. Foster. Yes, our proposal provides for that. But our proposal 

 says that the person who has the need to take the animals will 

 have to explain why. 



Senator Kerry. And historically, NMFS has dealt with the tak- 

 ing of nuisance mammals in that fashion, with a showing of need. 



Dr. Foster. That is the way we would have handled it, under 

 the exemption. But in fact, as far as I know, it never came up. We 

 have not had an actual proposal to take, yet. 



Senator Kerry. Is it still the goal of NMFS, in arriving at this 

 framework, to embrace a zero mortality goal? Or has that changed 

 in any way? 



Dr. Foster. No. We think that in our proposal we have main- 

 tained, again, what we thought was one of the basic goals of the 

 original law. We would do that, as I indicated, through our re- 

 search effort, by beginning to focus on ways in which you might cut 

 down on incidental mortality through gear research, coming up 

 with different fishing techniques, this kind of thing. So that over 

 time 



Senator Kerry. But what you in effect do. Doctor, through your 

 current proposal, is lay out a regime that does create a framework 

 for calculating the total number of marine mammals that can be 

 removed on a continuing basis, correct? 



Dr. Foster. This is correct. 



Senator Kerry. If you are allowing in your framework for a con- 

 tinual taking, on a continuing basis, while simply relating that to 

 trying to keep the stock either at, or above, or bring it up to the 

 optimum sustainable population, you are in effect embracing some- 

 thing that will continually fall short of a zero mortality goal? 



Dr. Foster. Correct. Except that, in our proposal, we set the 

 PBR, allowable take, and then we do all of these other things that 

 will cut down on the existing incidental mortality; looking at all as- 

 pects of the fishery, other ways that you can cut it down. And over 

 time, you do cut down on the allowable take. Just because you can 

 take a certain number does not mean you automatically get that 

 number. 



I mean, this will be looked at very thoroughly by the team of sci- 

 entists, other ways to continually ratchet down this take. So, we 

 are not remaining static. We do intend to do everything we can to 

 ratchet down that take. So that, for example, if you have a PBR 

 of 100, and next year you have a fishery that is only taking 20, 

 well, you are not going to give them a take of 100. So, you begin 

 to slowly ratchet it down. I mean, you will never reacn zero, of 

 course. But you do as much as you can to continually decrease it. 



