88 



remove crows who were causing a problem for the endangered tor- 

 toise. 



So, precedents certainly exist for that. And some, not all, of the 

 organizations whom I represent, I think, recognize that and would 

 welcome being a part of the process that is set up to deal with it. 

 So that particular situation you are referring to was, in fact, ex- 

 actly what we had in mind when the negotiation process dealt with 

 nuisance animals. 



Senator Gorton. Thank you. 



Ms. lUDiCELLO. I do not have that much to add to what Guy or 

 Sharon said. I think they both described very precisely what we 

 crafted. I think what you are hearing, certainly from a conservation 

 community perspective, is that the idea that there can be an over- 

 abundance of marine mammals is counter to our world view. 



There was a lot of discussion earlier of burden of proof, and 

 where it lies, and who has it, and so on and so forth. And I think 

 what we said early on in the negotiations is that, if a user of ma- 

 rine resources want to make a case that an overabundance of spe- 

 cies X causes a problem for species Y and they ought to be culled, 

 because that is what we are talking about here, then there really 

 is a burden on that applicant to come forward and prove that the 

 animal is at OSP. 



And if it is, then the Marine Mammal Protection Act contains 

 provisions to waive the moratorium, and go through rulemaking, 

 and allow either a transfer of management to the State, which 

 would then manage the population as you would with deer; or you 

 could get a permit to do a variety of things. But you do have to 

 get to that OSP determination in the first place. 



And we have encouraged the west coast, particularly Pacific 

 Northwest Coast industry folks and some of the tribal fishermen as 

 well, to get the ball rolling, kick it off, start it, make an application 

 and see what happens. The agency cannot duck the issue forever. 

 If you put on expert witnesses, and you can prove that an animal 

 is at OSP, then you have got options. 



Senator Gorton. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 



Senator Stevens. Mr. Chairman, could I ask just one more ques- 

 tion, and make one comment? I did not ask this, and I got caught 

 up in my other questions, I apologize. But the negotiated proposal's 

 conservation team would have benchmarks for each fishery, for im- 

 mediate and long-term goals to reduce the incidental fishing mor- 

 tality to an insignificant rate approaching zero, within 10 years. 



Now there are all kinds of concepts about how to ensure that the 

 benchmarks are met. But I would like to know: Do you believe the 

 conservation team approach provides protection to fishermen to 

 prevent benchmarks from being set so low, or ratcheted down too 

 quickly, as many feel happened to the tuna fishermen in the east- 

 ern tropical Pacific? I assume you are familiar with that. 



Ms. lUDlCELLO. Yes, sir. The benchmark idea, as you will note in 

 the proposal and in fact it is one of the criticisms that the Marine 

 Mammal Protection Coalition has of it, is that they are vague. This 

 is not a quota setting, ratcheting, cap kind of proposal. Our idea 

 was that the whole point of this is to aim downward at reducing 

 takes; not to aim upward until you have met the quota or the bag 

 limit. 



