72 



cases these "quotas" would allow a higher rate of kill than fisheries were currently 

 inflicting. This does not encourage reduction in mortality. 



3. The system for reporting and monitoring marine mammal kills is inadequate, 

 and enforcement programs are vague at best. Self reporting by vessel owners has 

 been shown to be totally unreliable. On-board observers provided the only reliable 

 means of determining the extent of the problems. Overall, the mean discrepancy be- 

 tween observer calculations and log book reports was 600 percent. This means that, 

 on average, vessel owners reported killing only 1 marine mammal for every 6 cal- 

 culated by on-board observers. The discrepancy in reporting was as hig^ as 2,100 

 percent, however no specific program was proposed to remedy this problem. Fur- 

 thermore, compliance with registration and reporting declined annually. Vessel own- 

 ers submitted fewer logbooks each year, and each year of the program, fewer and 

 fewer vessels registered with the program, despite a legal mandate to do so. No en- 

 forcement actions restricted their fishing, and the NMFS proposal merely states 

 that if vessels exceeded their allowable kul of marine mammals, the fishery "might" 

 be restricted. This is not acceptable. 



4. A number of fisheries, having significant interaction-problems with marine 

 mammals, would escape regulation. Large numbers of non-commercial fisheries that 

 use gear identical to that implicated in high levels of marine mammal deaths re- 

 main unregulated. Their counterparts who fish commercially in the same area with 

 the same gear are subject to registration and reporting requirements. For example, 

 fishers in the mid-Atlantic states who use gill nets to fish for bait are not required 

 to register, while neighboring fishers who sell their catch are subject to registration. 

 Additionally, experimental fisheries are assumed to have-low levels of marine mam- 

 mal mortality unless monitoring proves otherwise. For example, the growing pair 

 trawl industry (an experimental fishery) was given the benefit of doubt, despite the 

 fact that long nets pulled through the ocean are well known to entangle marine 

 mammals. 



5. Fisheries would be permitted to kill marine mammal species which are listed 

 as threatened or endangered. Even species such as humpback whales have an allow- 

 able removal level under the proposed NMFS regime. 



CONCERNS WITH THE NEGOTIATED DOCUMENT 



While the document negotiated jointly by the fishing community and 7 of the con- 

 servation groups attempted to deal with these deficits, the document does not sub- 

 stantially address many of these concerns, and even weakens some of the NMFS 

 proposals. 



1. There is no centralized system for registration of fishing vessels. While NMFS 

 proposed registering all of the approximately 100,000 vessels presumed to interact 

 with marine mammals, the negotiated document does not. Instead, it proposes com- 

 bining data bases from the Fisheries Conservation Management Act (FCMA) reg- 

 istration with those of states and native tribes and issuing MMPA registrations to 

 all those not registered under one of these three systems. This assumes that all data 

 bases are compatible, which they are not. It also assumes that vessels not registered 

 in one of these data bases can be readily identified and subsequently registered 

 under an MMPA permit. These assumptions are not only incorrect, they are expen- 

 sive to correct. NMFS would have to expend personnel and program funds to com- 

 bine and analyze information, with no registration fees coming in to offset this con- 

 siderable expense. The lack of a centralized system also makes it difficult to track 

 effort. Without knowledge of how many vessels are fishing,; and where, when and 

 how they fish, it is impossible to determine the level of interaction with marine 

 mammals. 



2. The system for monitoring interactions with marine mammals is not adequate. 

 The negotiated document relies heavily on self-reporting, which has already shown 

 itself to be highly unreliable. Furthermore, use of observers would occur only if rec- 

 ommended by conservation teams which are convened solely to protect marine mam- 

 mal stocks sustaining critical levels of interactions. Those marine mammal stocks 

 which are not considered "critical" would not be monitored by observers no matter 

 how high the level of take unless the level can be somehow documented and the 

 Secretary uses his/her discretionary powers to intervene. For example, the Califor- 

 nia set gillnet industry was identified by NMFS as a "problem" fishery, due to ex- 

 tremely nigh levels of interaction with harbor seals. Under the negotiated document, 

 this fishery is not likely to be subject to observer coverage although the NMFS pro- 

 posal would have required observers. The reason for this discrepancy is that harbor 

 seals are not considered a "critical" stock under the negotiated document and thus 

 the fishery would not be a priority. On the other hand, NMFS prioritized the fishery 

 because of the unduly high, and reducible, level of kill. 



