81 



But you also have to look at other variables as well. For example, 

 the siltation in the river. Is it closing down the opening so that you 

 are getting a congregation that was not there previously? You have 

 to look at pollution factors that may be affecting the reproduction 

 of the species of fish or acid rain or things like that that may affect 

 productivity. 



So, there are usually a lot of variables at play. And unfortunately 

 in situations where you have predators interacting with prey spe- 

 cies to the detriment of the prey species, oftentimes it is not as 

 simple as saying the predator is at fault. Usually there are other 

 interactors that have to be considered if you want to find a viable 

 solution. And that is what we advocate. 



Senator Kerry, And just very quickly, before I turn to col- 

 leagues, and also Mr. Kaelin, if you would join in this answer with 

 Ms. Young, what is the most troubling aspect of the NMFS pro- 

 gram or of the coalition working group program in your view? 



Mr. Kaelin. Well, starting with the NMFS proposal, as I said in 

 my testimony, it is difficult in 5 minutes to nilly express perhaps 

 an idea. But we — as I said earlier, I am concerned about category 

 III fisheries, current category III fisheries, coming under any addi- 

 tional regulation at all wnen there is no demonstrable impact by 

 those fisheries on marine mammal stocks. I think that is what 

 NMFS is proposing, with mandatory observers and registering all 

 vessels — it just does not seem to make sense to us if we are already 

 category III fisheries, and over the last 5 years data has been de- 

 veloped that does not show we have had an impact, why should we 

 have additional regulation? 



I think that is probably our biggest problem with the NMFS pro- 

 posal. There are some positive aspects, but the idea that there is 

 a quota and once it is met fisheries will be shut down — perhaps 

 NMFS might argue that those like our herring fishery that are not 

 having a great impact might not be shut down— but if you read the 

 NMFS proposal, it does not give you that assurance. I think that 

 would be our biggest problem with that proposal. 



I think with the negotiated, so-called, critical stocks regime, 

 which is the one that refers to the use of conservation teams and 

 refers to putting our scare resources — addressing them toward 

 mammal problems that do exist, I think the greatest shortfall is 

 that robust stocks were not at all addressed. We attempted to ad- 

 dress what do you do about large stocks of mammals, some of the 

 issues that Senator Stevens was raising, I think, really were kind 

 of left off the table. We did not get into now we change the Marine 

 Mammal Protection Act, or maybe we do not have to, to address 

 large stocks of animals. 



I think that is the problem with the overall agreements that we 

 have worked out. It does not — our agreements really do not address 

 nuisance animal situations from robust stocks adequately. So, I 

 guess that would be my answer, sir. 



Senator Kerry. Ms. Young, do you want to add to that? 



Ms. Young. [Nods negatively.] 



Senator Kerry. Senator Stevens. 



Senator Stevens. Thank you. Ms. ludicello, I want to go on 

 record again as thanking your organization for its great help along 

 with others on the driftnet issue. I would just say for the record 



