73 



The MMPA reflects a national policy in favor of public display. The proposed 

 amendment would thwart the Congressional policy to educate the public throughout 

 the nation about marine mammals — as well as severely harm public display institu- 

 tions. Furthermore, the MMPA provides comprehensive, stringent federal reflation 

 concerning the granting of public displaypermits, which regulation takes mto ac- 

 count a panoply of conservation criteria. The federal permit process allows for par- 

 ticipation by all interested parties — including states. Public display permits are not 

 granted without opportunity for public comment and thorough review by the NMFS, 

 me Marine Mammal Commission and the Committee of Scientific Advisors on Ma- 

 rine Mammals. A state veto would fly in the face of this regulatory regime. 



Furthermore, dolphins are migratory and move in and out of the waters within 

 the boundaries of a particular state. The proposal's state-regulation approach to this 

 interstate phenomenon is inappropriate. i' 



G. Other Unwarranted Proposed Restrictions on Public Display and Scientific Re- 

 search 



An additional proposal to restrict public display and scientific research have been 

 put forth. H.R. 656 ("The Dolphin Capture, Export and Public Display Protection 

 Act"). While a similar proposal has not been introduced in the Senate, the Marine 

 Mammal Coalition wishes to go on record here that any such proposal would be un- 

 necessary, counterproductive and contrary to important policies oi the MMPA. 



(1) The bill would require the Secretary of Agriculture to review standards estab- 

 lished under the Animal Welfare Act for the care and habitat of marine mammals 

 in captivity. 



This provision is unnecessary. The Secretary of Agriculture, acting through 

 APHIS, already has the authority to review standards established under the Animal 

 Welfare Act, is conducting such a review, and intends to publish an advanced notice 

 of proposed rulemaking for enhanced care and maintenance standards. 



(2) The bill would require the issuance of regulations to establish a system for 

 tracking marine mammals taken in waters under jurisdiction of the United States 

 or imported into the United States. 



This provision is unnecessary. NMFS maintains an inventory of marine mammals 

 under its jurisdiction held by permit holders. Furthermore, regulations issued pur- 

 suant to the Animal Welfare Act impose extensive recordkeeping requirements on 

 zoological institutions and public aquariums concerning "purchase, sale, transpor- 

 tation, identification, and previous ownership of animals." 7 U.S.C. §2140; 9 C.F.R. 

 §§2.75-2.80. 



(3) The bill would make it unlawful to take any marine mammal in waters under 

 the jurisdiction of the United States during the period beginning on the date of the 

 enactment of the Act and ending on the effective date of the-tracking system regula- 

 tions. 



This provision flies in the face of a fundamental Congressional policy of the 

 MMPA to favor and foster public display and scientific research. It suspends for a 

 significant time the MMPA provision allowing permits for the taking of marine 

 mammals for public display, scientific research, and enhancement of survival or re- 

 covery of a species or stock of marine manmials. 16 U.S.C. § 1371(aXl). 



The bill would block even exercise of existing permits. The bill actually would halt 

 the take of any marine mammal in waters under the jurisdiction of the United 

 States, including commercial fishing operations, thus having an impact far beyond 

 public display and scientific research. 



(4) The bill would prohibit the export of marine mammals except for the purpose 

 of maintaining or improving the health and well-being of the marine mammal. 



This provision is unnecessary and counterproductive. Foreign institutions wishing 

 to obtain marine mammals must obtain a permit from the NMFS and must dem- 

 onstrate that they are in compliance with standards for care and maintenance of 

 marine mammals issued under the Animal Welfare Act. In addition. United States 

 marine mammal institutions sometimes obtain marine mammals through exchange 

 or other arrangements with other institutions, including institutions abroad. The 

 prohibition on experts would thus thwart United States institutions from obtaining 

 animals they need for their Congressionally-favored purposes — thus harming these 

 institutions, the public they serve, and the interests oi conservation of marine mam- 

 mals. And, foreign countries would probably end up by taking more marine mam- 

 mals from the wild. 



I'The desire of Congress for uniform federal regulation is further demonstrated by Section 

 1379, which specifically bars enforcement of state laws relating to the taking of marine mam- 

 mals unless the Secretary has transferred authority for conservation and management to a state 

 under stringent criteria. 



