37 



sessing sharp teeth, and are known to exhibit aggression toward 

 each other under various naturally occurring circumstances. The 

 potential for tragedy in forced interactions witn humans is obvious. 

 Moreover, in the end, it is the animal that will suffer when nega- 

 tive interactions occur. 



Point No. 5, the Marine Mammal Protection Act should require 

 that permits be obtained to determine the placement of stranded 

 marine mammal deemed unreleasable. The Marine Mammal Pro- 

 tection Act is unclear about the determination of the releasability 

 of stranded or injured animals. In fact, this ambiguity has allowed 

 animals to be held captive for years in substandard situations by 

 facilities lacking permits or the ability to meet permitting require- 

 ments. 



We believe that the process by which facilities receive animals 

 and determine their eventual fate must be made more stringent. 

 Under no circumstances should a facility be issued a permit to re- 

 tain a stranded animal before that animal has been evaluated as 

 to its releasability. The evaluation itself should be carefully mon- 

 itored, especially when the species or stock involved is endangered, 

 threatened, or depleted. If a stranded animal is deemed releasable 

 it should be released promptly. 



Point No. 6, the Marine Mammal Act should be amended to pro- 

 hibit the capture from the wild of marine mammals for public dis- 

 play including those animals captured outside the United States for 

 importation into this country. 



The public display industry has recently been extolling the suc- 

 cesses of its captive breeding programs for marine mammals. In- 

 deed, most pinnipeds currently in captivity were captive bred, and 

 there are nearly sufficient numbers and genetic diversity available 

 among the captive population to sustain itself without 

 supplementing with wild caught individuals. Bottle-nose dolphins 

 are also breeding well in captivity and are close to self-sustaining. 



It is important to note that neither of these groups represent en- 

 dangered species, so their captive breeding programs cannot be 

 considered necessary for conservation. In further support of this 

 point, facilities engaged in captive breeding are not actively pursu- 

 ing programs designed to rehabilitate and release into the wild any 

 progeny produced. 



We therefore question whether these programs benefit the spe- 

 cies involved or promote the intent of the Marine Mammal Protec- 

 tion Act. But regardless, we maintain that by the industry's own 

 admission wild captures of individuals from these groups are no 

 longer necessary for public display or captive breeding. 



The industry maintains that because of small captive populations 

 for all other cetacean species, again most of which are not endan- 

 gered, wild captures will continue be necessary into the foreseeable 

 niture to maintain genetic diversity among the captive population. 

 This assertion does not support the intent of the Marine Mammal 

 Protection Act or common sense. 



If a species is not endangered and a self-sustaining captive 

 breeding program is not possible without wild caught 

 supplementation, then it is questionable that such a species should 

 even be maintained in captivity. Certainly, wild captures in such 

 a case are not necessary tor conservation, and continuing to allow 



