77 



Thank you. 



Senator KERRY. We will recess and get back just as fast as we 

 can. 



[A brief recess was taken.] 



Senator Kerry. Folks, thank you. I do not blame you for talking 

 on into the day as we chew up your time, and I apologize and 

 thank you very much for your patience with us. 



We just ended the round of testimony, so if we could begin and 

 ask a few questions I think it will be very helpful in trying to draw 

 out the record here a little bit. 



Ms. ludicello, you began with an expression of the good work 

 done and the numbers of different groups that came together on 

 this. I think it is an excellent piece of work, incidentally, notwith- 

 standing there are still differences of opinion and people who op- 

 pose it, and that is understandable. 



As you hear Ms. Young explain her fairly clear feelings about 

 some of the problems, I wonder if you would address how it is and 

 why it is that your group came to be in a different position, and 

 where you put the issues that Ms. Young raised with respect to the 

 inadequacies of the current agreement. 



Ms. lUDlCELLO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy to 

 answer that. First of all, I think we need to be a little more forth- 

 right about who is representing whom in terms of what kinds of 

 groups they are. The groups that signed on to the document char- 

 acterized themselves as conservation groups, and we can get into 

 an argument about semantics, but I think the truth of the matter 

 is that the group who did not sign on to the document, with maybe 

 one or two exceptions, if you look at them are better described as 

 animal protection groups. So, there is a really fundamental dif- 

 ference of approach from whence we start. 



A few of the groups who did not sign on to the joint agreement 

 stuck with the process through the entire series of meetings and 

 negotiations to the very end. And of those who went through the 

 whole process, a few did not sign on. There were those who dipped 

 in and out of the process from time to time but really did not com- 

 mit very much effort, who later signed on to the counterproposal. 

 Now, that is sort of the politics of it. 



I think what is really important, though, is that we have to come 

 face to face with the question — actually we do not, you do, of 

 whether the MMPA is going to provide mechanisms whereby inci- 

 dental takes, that is accidents, takes that are not intentional or di- 

 rected or meant to be, whether the MMPA is going to treat that 

 kind of behavior in a punitive manner or in a preventive manner. 

 Just what are we getting at here? 



And I think the difference is that our group are willing to ac- 

 knowledge that there are places where there are problems, and in 

 those places, those areas, what we call critical stocks or stocks 

 where actual mortality that is caused by fishing operations is the 

 problem, then you bring all the regulatory, management, and en- 

 forcement tools you have to bear on dealing with fisning. 



If fishing mortality is not the problem, then what is the purpose 

 of creating an elaborate registration and observing and reporting 

 and monitoring scheme to verify over, and over, and over again 



nr\ nnn r\ 



