75 



ing takes; and went with conservation groups to lobby successfully for funds to in- 

 vestigate promising advances in technology to reduce mortality. Without the incen- 

 tive of the proposed listing and the influx of research moneys, this change in their 

 commitment to and success in reducing takes would not be occurring. The commit- 

 ment to reducing takes to an insignificant level approaching zero within 10 years, 

 coupled with penalties for failure, can provide some incentive to other fisheries; but 

 monies need to be spent on helping develop the means to achieve this commitment. 



5. The National Marine Fisheries Service should retain primary oversight for en- 

 dangered and threatened species of marine mammals. No permits should be issued 

 for the lethal taking of these stocks. Conservation teams ban provide oversidit on 

 fishery interactions with threatened and endangered stocks and can provide rec- 

 ommendations for mitigation. The Secretary should retain management authority 

 under the MMPA. We are concerned that the issuance of permits to take these 

 stocks undermines the protection which is inherent in their designation as ESA list- 

 ed stocks. 



6. There should be no intentional lethal taking of marine mammals except to pro- 

 tect human health and safety. The specter of shooting or otherwise killing nuisance 

 marine mammals is one which is universally distasteful to the public. There was 

 an outpouring of public sentiment against dolphins dying in the tuna industry, even 

 though these stocks were presumed at that time to be abundant and it was more 

 expensive for the industry to fish using other methods. This same sense of concern 

 extends to other marine mammals, whether or not they are abundant or inconven- 

 ient to fishing operations. Engineering is the solution to problems with marine 

 mammals, not killing them. Regardless of the species, killing nuisance animals has 

 never been shown to be an effective long-term solution. The public does not support 

 deliberately killing marine mammals and is likely to strongly protest any federal 

 sanction of such actions. 



CONCLUSION 



In order to develop an effective program to govern interaction between marine 

 mammals and conmiercial fisheries, it is necessary for a regime to be able to: (1) 

 identify the scope and nature of activity of the fishing industries which may interact 

 with marine mammals; (2) monitor and cpiantify interactions with marine mam- 

 mals; (3) provide realistic measures and incentive for reducing incidental take; (4) 

 allow for stricter protection of some stocks with more fragile populations; and (5) 

 generate consistent and adequate funding. 



Both the NMFS proposal and the negotiated document fail in some of these areas. 

 The proposals we have outlined are intended to provide a framework to meet these 

 objectives. 



Again, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to address the Committee 

 with our concerns. I would like to close by emphasizing that management of marine 

 mammals based on high rates of incidental death is contrary, not only to the intent 

 of the MMPA, but also to the wishes of the American people. Therefore we implore 

 Congress to re-authorize a strong MMPA which includes reasonable regulation of 

 the fishing industry, contains a means of reliably assessing the on-going level of 

 fisheries interactions, includes research into mitigation measures to reduce lethal 

 takes and provides stringent enforcement to ensure compliance. The groups which 

 I represent believe that this approach will provide for the recovery of marine mam- 

 mals and the wise conservation of marine resources, and is in keeping with the spir- 

 it and intent of the MMPA. 



Thank you for the opportunity to express our views. We are prepared to assist 

 in any way to improve this critical situation. 



Senator Kerry. Thank you very much, Ms. Young. We have to 

 vote again. We have been joined by Senator Gorton. I would like 

 to probably take a recess and come back, and we will begin a round 

 of questions. We will enjoy having a good dialog with you. 



Senator Gorton, before we do that, did you want to make a quick 

 opening of any kind? 



OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR GORTON 



Senator GtORTON. Thank vou, Mr. Chairman. We do not have 

 very much time for that quick opening. 

 Senator Kerry. That is why I said quick. 



