The first concern, probably the most important philosophical or 

 practical difference between our two proposals, is the question — 

 with whom rests the burden of proof for takes? 



Under the Fisheries proposal and under the MMPA prior to 

 1988, it was set up so that no takes were allowed, and no takes 

 are allowed in our proposal unless the user can demonstrate that 

 the take is necessary and the take is not going to adversely affect 

 marine mammal stocks. 



It appears to us that under the negotiated proposal, takes would 

 be allowed unless the Government could demonstrate that such 

 takes disadvantaged the stock, so we see this as an important shift 

 in the burden of proof, an important philosophical distinction that 

 actually goes to the heart of the MMPA as it was originally con- 

 ceived. 



We think it is an issue that represents a significant departure, 

 at least in this instance, away from the MMPA's precautionary 

 principle for managing or conserving marine mammals. I think it 

 is something that we need to look at carefully before we decide to 

 take that step. 



Second, I think it is fair to say that all of us who have worked 

 on proposals agree that when we come up with our stock assess- 

 ment reports, these documents should be subjected to scientific 

 scrutiny and rigorous peer review before they are used by us, or be- 

 fore they go out for general public review. 



We take the position that this review should be done by sci- 

 entists with expertise in marine mammal biology and population 

 dynamics, and scientists who are not employed by groups with 

 vested interests in the results of the evaluation, because we are 

 talking, after all, about science. We are not talking about policy at 

 this particular stage. 



Finally, with regard to the conservation teams, this idea is rath- 

 er intriguing. We think that it has merit, and that certainly it war- 

 rants further discussions. We have had at least one discussion with 

 the group that put this plan together, and we will be talking to 

 them again. 



Our concerns focus on the role and the makeup of these con- 

 servation teams. We believe that as currently written, the role is 

 a bit too broad, and really is more undefined than anything else. 

 We are concerned, again, about the representation on this team. 



If you take what you read in the proposal at face value, it looks 

 as though it is going to be a very large group, that it will include 

 primarily representatives from special interest groups, and some- 

 times, depending on what role the team is asked to play, that is 

 OK and would be a good thing. I just think we need to talk about 

 it. I think that the conservation team idea could be made to work, 

 depending, again, on its role. 



Finally, in conclusion, I just want to say that I think it is impor- 

 tant to recognize that there are many similarities between these 

 proposals. We find that looking at the proposal from the third 

 group represented here today, many of the concerns are handled by 

 our proposal. So, I think everybody is closer together than you 

 might imagine at first glance. 



