74 



fishing operations were having a 'significant adverse impact' on one or more marine 

 mammal stocks." 



The NMFS proposal has flaws which are significant, but the proposal by NMFS 

 is stiU likely to be more protective of marine manmials than the negotiated docu- 

 ment, and mrthermore allows imposition of fees to help fund the proposed regime. 



PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES 



We propose the following components which should be contained in any regime 

 to manage interactions between commercial fisheries and marine mammals. Some 

 of them nave been synthesized from the more positive aspects of the NMFS pro- 

 posal, while others are designed to close "loopholes' which leave marine mammals 

 without adequate protection. 



1. A centralized, mandatory registration of all vessels. NMFS estimated that a 

 mere $50 registration fee could generate up to $5 milUon to help support the cost 

 of a management regime. Without a central system, imposition of fees to fund the 

 program would be extremely difficult. Furthermore registration is the foundation of 

 a reliable monitoring program. Before one can determine whether marine mammal 

 deaths are increasing, decreasing or remaining stable, it is necessary to know all 

 of those vessels within an industry which may be contributing to the mortality. 



2. A mandatory observer program. The Secretary should have the authority to 

 place observers on any vessel which can safely carry them if he/she feels that it is 

 necessary to monitor the level of interactions with marine manmials. Prudent prac- 

 tice would dictate that observers should first be directed to monitoring those fish- 

 eries with the most critical levels of interactions, but the Secretary should also have 

 authority to place them on any vessel to help verify the level of marine mammal 

 mortality. Fisheries which have a significant interaction problem and require great- 

 er observer coverage could be charged differentially to off-set the cost of the pro- 

 gram. The institution of a central registry would make such assessments possible. 

 Without a well designed observer program, it will not be possible for the Secretary 

 to accurately determine whether levels of marine mammal mortality are rising, fall- 

 ing or remaining stable. The use of observers should not be determined by the con- 

 servation teams. 



3. Conservation teams should have a regional (not species specific) focus, and their 

 primary task should be advising the Secretary on methods of reducing incidental 

 mortality. Construction of the teams to address regional problems prevents duplica- 

 tion of effort where a fishery interacts with more than one stock. Concern over 

 stocks sustaining critical levels of mortality may provide the impetus for forming 

 each regional team, but the regional focus is more cost efficient and allows stocks 

 in the region which are not 'critical' to receive some oversight. The teams should 

 focus on developing strategies for reducing mortality and may also assist in identify- 

 ing stocks or situations reouiring additional research attention. The Secretary 

 should be responsible for collecting and evaluating stock assessment data and for 

 setting recovery factors to assist stocks in reaching their former abundance. This 

 should not be the responsibility of the conservation teams. For example, in the 

 northeast, there are significant interaction problems with the harbor porpoise, but 

 there are also concerns about pilot whale interactions, and nteractions with the 

 coastal mid-Atlantic stocks of Iwttle nosed dolphins. Both the swordfish industry 

 and the set gillnet industry may interact with these stocks and a number of others. 

 A regional team could address the interactions problems of all fisheries involved. 

 Once the Secretary sets the maximum tolerable removal level for each stock (popu- 

 lation X reproductive rate x recovery factor), these levels could be conveyed to the 

 team. It would then be the task of the team to formulate recommendations on the 

 most eflective methods for reducing takes,to construct timelines for reductions, and 

 identify data gaps in research that might help mitigate incidental take. 



4. Funding snould be specifically earmarked for research into development or 

 modification of technology or behavior which may mitigate marine mammal mortal- 

 ity. "The fishing industry has made a commitment to work toward the zero mortality 

 and serious injury rate goal, yet without funds to develop technology and methods 

 for reducing mortality, no reductions are likely. The past five years of the exemption 

 program have shown that voluntary reductions do not occur without significant in- 

 ducement, and without funding to investigate mitigation strategies. For example, in 

 the years since passage of the MMPA, the Gulf of Maine set gillnet industry contin- 

 ued to inflict unacceptably high rates of mortality on harbor porpoise. Currently, the 

 gillnet industry is working to try to reduce mortality. The reason for this change 

 is that harbor twrpoise were proposed for listing as a threatened species under the 

 ESA because of^the intolerable level of death the stock was sustaining. Furthermore, 

 fishermen agreed to work with conservation groups to discuss strategies for reduc- 



