83 



tor so that you came out with 200. It did not occur to us that the 

 flexibiHty could be used to make it 50. 



Now, this is not the most graceful drafting, as I am sure you rec- 

 ognized when you looked at the joint proposal. So, I think the in- 

 tent certainly was not there, and we would be delighted to work 

 with the committee staff and others to make sure that that is very 

 clear in whatever the committee proposes in legislation. 



Senator Stevens. Thank you very much. I would like to make 

 sure in the drafting, as well, and I think we can. But I think this 

 record of your statement would be sufficient in any court. I thank 

 you very much for that. 



Ms. Young, I was very pleased to hear you articulate your posi- 

 tion about the nuisance problem, and I think that there has been 

 a substantial meeting of the minds, here. I appreciate your answer. 

 I just want to say that to you. 



With regard to your testimony, Ms. ludicello, about the use of 

 firearms on ocean mammals, I have long thought that that ought 

 to be illegal in a criminal sense unless a permit was issued by a 

 State or the Federal Government or the mammal was taken under 

 the exemption for subsistence use. We would be very pleased to 

 work with you on that. I think there are marauders out there who 

 misuse firearms. 



I am also a gun nut so I am not against guns. I am just saying 

 that some people misuse them, and I think Federal law ought to 

 protect mammals from the intentional shooting by those who inci- 

 dentally catch mammals in pursuit of their livelihood. So, we would 

 be glad to work with you on that. 



Mr. Oilman, the problem I mentioned before about the taking 

 from "other sources of legal takes from noncritical stocks," and 

 whether or not that would expand the Secretary's authority over 

 subsistence use, relates to the conversation I just had with Ms. 

 ludicello. What do you think about this proposal? Does it ^ve the 

 Secretary authority to regulate the subsistence use of species that 

 are not on one of tnese lists so far? 



Mr. Oilman. Neither the critical stock proposal under the con- 

 servation team approach nor the noncritical stock proposal changes 

 in any way, shape, or form, the regulatory structure over subsist- 

 ence that currently exists within the MMPA. And the confusion, I 

 think, is over what is not explained in the proposal. We are in a 

 dilemma. I represent Aleut native fishermen in the South Penin- 

 sula and North Peninsula area of the Aleutian Islands. There are 

 also Aleut native subsistence users of harbor seals and other ma- 

 rine mammals. 



We were told that there was only one bottomline as a condition 

 for our participation in this negotiation; that is, this regime we ne- 

 gotiated could not in any way, shape, or form, increase the regu- 

 latory structure over subsistence — period — and that we would walk 

 away from the deal if it were attempted. That discussion occurred 

 on a number of occasions in our Seattle meeting. 



The way we have worked it out is that the conservation team 

 process is a consensus building mechanism. You have to build by 

 consensus, and you have a short timeframe to do it. The only stock 

 in Alaska that we have identified as critical, that has both fishing 

 interaction and subsistence use is Alaska harbor seals. They are a 



