18 



In other words, if the goal of the photography is to put together 

 a film to build support for saving the species, and there may be an 

 incidental taking as a consequence of doing that, is there a bal- 

 ancing, or is there just a prophylactic negative prohibition? 



Dr. HOFMAN. At the present time, as I understand it>— and gen- 

 eral counsel will correct me if I am wrong, it is prohibited under 

 the Marine Mammal Protection Act. 



Mr. GosLlNER. Let me chime in here. It seems like you are sug- 

 gesting that perhaps this fits imder the provision of the act allow- 

 ing permits to be issued for species enhancement, and if that is in- 

 deed the case, then you could do it for depleted as well as 

 nondepleted species. It seems to me that that goes beyond the con- 

 gressional intent of the 1988 amendment that added enhancement 

 under the types of permits 



Senator Kerry. Well, let me pursue the same line. I will come 

 back to the issue of the film. There are questions raised about the 

 research, whether or not the research should be related. Some ad- 

 vocates say the research ought to be related directly to the benefit 

 of the species. If it is not related to the benefit of the species, no 

 taking. How do you respond to that? 



Dr. HoFMAN. I will respond to that one. I think there are several 

 difficulties with that proposal. First, in many cases, it is very, very, 

 very difficult — ^it is impossible — to predict beforehand how the re- 

 sults of certain kinds of research may contribute to or benefit a 

 species. 



This issue came up in 1988, and among other things it resulted 

 in two scientists writing a paper that was published in BioScience, 

 I think in December 1989. Ifyou would like, I could find a copy 

 of that paper and provide it. The paper spoke to the importance of 

 basic research, and the problem tnat in many cases it is virtually 

 impossible to determine beforehand how the results of research will 

 contribute in the long run to conservation. 



I will provide one example. In 1976, the value of photo identifica- 

 tion of whales, killer whales — orcas in particular-— was very con- 

 troversial within the scientific community. Many scientists at that 

 time felt that it was a bogus scientific practice, and would never 

 result or provide anything that was useful, because it could not 

 meet the basic assumptions necessary for mark — recapture and 

 other kinds of studies. 



Well, nearly 20 years later, looking back on it, it seems clear that 

 photo identification is a useful scientific technique. It is one of the 

 most important techniques for studying many species of animals. 

 But in 1976 many members of the scientific communities believed 

 it served no beneficial purpose. In fact, many thought it was plain 

 harassment, and it was harmful. 



So, it off^n is very, very difficult to say with great clarity what 

 will be beneficial. 



There is a second element as well. That is, there are certain as- 

 pects about certain marine mammals that are unique, and by un- 

 derstanding them can make unique contributions to human health 

 and medicine. That kind of research certainly has no benefit to the 

 marine mammals. It has great potential benefit to the human spe- 

 cies, and if you had a criterion that in order to do research it some- 

 how would nave to benefit the animal, it would rule out a whole 



