

247 



o the problem. That approach and our recommendations were made 

 , part of the record in the expectations that we presented to the Di- 

 ector of the National Marine Fisheries Service. 



We also agreed that the stock of the eastern spinner is depleted, as 

 las already been stated. That, also, is a matter of record in the hear- 

 i\g and was expressed in a recommendation to the Director of the 

 National Marine Fisheries Service. 



I think the answer to your question is, in general, yes. 



Mr. Spensley. Just one other question. To your knowledge, has the 

 National Marine Fishery Service— well, let me rephrase the question. 

 )id the National Marine Fishery Service consult with you on your 

 nforcement policy with regard to accidental catch of porpoises? 



Mr. Eisenbud. There was consultation on that point and Dr. White 

 ccurately stated the Commission's view on that point when he sum- 

 aarized it this morning in response to Mr. Leggett's question. 



Mr. Spensley. Has that policy been in written form, to your 

 :no\vledge, that enforcement policy that we spoke of? 



Mr. Eisenbud. Well, there are two separate parts of this question, 

 . suspect. W T hat I thought you were asking about was the distinction 

 between accidental and intentional catches; and allowing a quota 

 ersus determining that it would not hurt if there were an accidental 

 nd 



Mr. Spensley. You answered my first question and not my second, 

 s to whether that is in written form with regard to the accidental 

 atch. 



Mr. Eisenbud. That is in the exceptions, and then there is a dis- 

 ussion of it which is confirmed by a letter from Mr. Blatt of the 

 National Marine Fisheries Service to me. I would be happy to pro- 

 ide that for the record. 



[The following was received:] 



U. S. Department of Commerce, 

 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 



Washington, D.C., February 11, 1911. 

 [r. Robert Eisenbud, 



General Counsel, Marine Mammal Commission, 



1625 Eye Street N.W., 



Washington, D.C. 

 Dear Bob : This is to confirm th substance of my telephone conversation with 

 ou. I called in reference to the question whether there can be a take of a 

 epleted species or stock under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. This issue 

 rises because the Marine Mammal Commission, as well as other parties, 

 rgued in briefs for MMPAH No. 2-1976 (tuna/porpoise regulations) that the 

 astern spinner dolphin is depleted. You also argued in favor of allowing an 

 ccidental, unintentional take of eastern spinners. There has been some confu- 

 ion over the meaning of your suggestion for an accidental, unintentional take 

 In our conversation, you agreed with me that once a species or stock had 

 een declared depleted, there could be no legal taking of that species or stock 

 ccidentally or otherwise. Thus, no permit could be issued that would allow any 

 liking of such a species or stock. You also indicated that your suggestion of 

 llowing for an accidental, unintentional kill of eastern spinners actually refer:* 

 o an enforcement policy. In that policy, only warnings would be given t<; 

 shermen who reasonably though that they were fishing on a pure school of. 

 ffshore spotted dolphins only to find that undetected eastern spinners wero 

 lso being set upon. In such cases, some kind of enforcement action would bo 

 equired because any killing of eastern spinners, even if accidental, would stil' 

 ie a violation of the Act. Moreover, you indicated that under your proposal, 

 ishermen who knowingly set upon a mixed school containing eastern spinner:", 

 hould receive a severe penalty. Finally, you stated that you believed the us< 



