79 



boats and docks, we countered that a preventive mechanism to avoid feeding so en- 

 counters that can damage property and injure people were less likely in the first 

 place. As a result, the following language was included in our agreement: "The par- 

 ties agree that the term "harass* includes the intentional feeding or attempting to 

 feed marine mammals in the wild." 



We urge the committee to incorporate this agreement in amendments to the 

 MMPA by adding to section 102(g) the following: 



"(g) It is unlawful to feed or attempt to feed a marine mammal in the wild, in- 

 cluding operating a vessel or providing other platforms in order to feed, offer, 

 give, or attempt to give food oi nonfood items to marine mammals in the wild. 

 This does not include the routine discard of bycatch during fishing operations 

 or the routine discharge of waste or fish byproducts from fish processmg plant 

 or their platforms if the discharge is otherwise legal and is incidental to oper- 

 ation of tne activity." 

 Finally, we understand the conmiittee is considering a second MMPA hearing 

 later this month to discuss issues other than incidental take. As you know, the cen- 

 ter has sponsored a workshop, produced a report, and commented extensively on 

 proposed regulations governing approach distances for whale watches and private 

 boaters. We oelieve that with minimal direction from the Congress, many of the is- 

 sues involved in this subject could be addressed flexibly and successfully through 

 administrative proceedings, particularly a negotiated rulemaking process tnat would 

 provide a forum to deal with special regional concerns. We would be pleased to pro- 

 vide a witness for your hearing, or a detailed statement for the record. We have 

 taken the opportunity to provide your staff with background information on this 

 issue. 



Thank you again, Senator Kerry. We look forward to problem solving with you, 

 the agency, ancTthe fishing industry. 

 Sincerely, 



SUZANNfE lUDICELLO, 

 Senior Program Counsel. 



Ms. lUDlCELLO. But I think the really important issue here is we 

 have a lot of problems. We do not have very much money for ma- 

 rine conservation in general. It is very important that we get the 

 most bang for the buck, and if it ain t broke what do we need to 

 fix? 



Senator Kerry. Do you want to respond to that, Ms. Young? 



Ms. Young. Sure. My primair response is that the concerns that 

 are raised by the groups that I am representing are not don't kill 

 no whales no time no place. They are very real and substantive 

 concerns about the mechanisms of how a program works. 



If you cannot register vessels, the patchwork of State, tribal, and 

 Federal permits proposed by the working group assumes that you 

 can mesh all those data bases, and you cannot. They are not all 

 compatible. It takes a lot of effort to figure out how they all work 

 together. And there are a lot of vessels, under 1 ton vessels, and 

 so on, that are not registered in any of them and you have to figure 

 out who they all are and find them, and get them registered. And 

 again, that working group system has no registration fee to pay for 

 it. 



Without a meaningful registration system you can promise all 

 you want about reducing mortality, but it makes it very difficult to 

 determine exactly who is fishing and where they are and so on, and 

 much of that is critical. 



Senator Kerry. Well, let us assume you get beyond the registra- 

 tion issue and the data base gathering. Where do you folks come 

 out on the nuisance lethal option? I mean, what happens for in- 

 stance in the situation where Senator Stevens points out you have 

 mammals that are becoming literally a nuisance to another part of 

 the ecosystem and to the commercial enterprise that we are, in 

 fact, licensing. 



