Mr. BREAUX. We would like to welcome Mr. Dale Snow, from Oregon.

Mr. SNOW. Mr. Chairman, I am Dale Snow, and I am representing Dr. John R. Donaldson, director of the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.

The Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 has been implemented, basically as a protectionist act. What we feel we need in Oregon is a conservation and management act. By conservation, we mean the wise use of a natural resource and, management is the act or art of putting this conservation into practice.

In 1973, the State of Oregon did submit a management program to the National Marine Fisheries Service, and requested a waiver of a moratorium.

Because of a number of unrealistic, bureaucratic stumbling blocks, our director withdrew at that time the request. In the meantime, we have observed Alaska, and they are seeking to get return of management, a State that had more data on marine mammals than any place else in the United States and probably the world. They were unable to successfully regain management, and as a consequence, the State of Oregon pretty much gave up on trying to get back management.

We support Alaska and their position on points that they ask for particularly on definition on optimum sustainable population, a realistic development of relationship between the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the Fisheries Conservation and Management Act, and resumption of State authority over nonendangered coastal species, and again, have Federal cooperation with the States on the program.

In addition, Oregon has other points that I would like to bring out, and these fall in several areas. One is the moratorium. With the passage of the act, a moratorium was adopted, and the end result in Oregon was we have animals that are-I like to refer to as cute, cuddly, and controversial, and this is certainly the case along our coast, where we are getting more and more interaction. I sometimes get the impression these animals are either listening to the radio, or came back to the District of Columbia, and read the act. Because within a few months they started reoccupying our rivers and estuaries where, during the years of harassment they were not seen in any numbers. Within a matter of months they were hauling out in spots they never hauled before, our aerial census indicates that since 1976, the population of harbor seals has gone from 3,000 to 5,000 animals. The sea lions population seems to be stable, at a population of 3,000, for a number of years. This high visibility has led to a number of conflicts.

A commercial fisherman can get a certificate of inclusion and can kill animals. A sport fisherman cannot do this. They-sportsmen-are avoiding certain areas of the coast because of interaction with the animals.

More recently seals and sea lions have learned that the crab fisherman is using ring nets, and puts fish in the ring. They are going down and taking the bait from the ring nets, and they are disrupting the fishermen. Needless to say, the animals are not becoming very popular with some of these user groups.

Another area that we are very concerned about is the fact that the act defines harass as being just as equally punishable as taking or killing. We feel that the term harass should be changed where nonlethal methods could be employed by States, or State employees, to protect the resource.

We had a situation where seals were actually in the fish ladders at the hatcheries, and the fish hatchery people cannot do anything about it.

Optimum sustainable population, of course, is something that we consider open ended. We do not know what the definition is. There does not seem to be any acceptable one. We feel this definitely needs to be changed.

We also feel that the Marine Mammal Commission and the Scientific Committee have served a very useful purpose in the formative years, but looking at it from a State standpoint, it would be much simpler if we had just one place to go when we were trying to find some way of regaining management, or solving problems with marine mammals.

We are recommending just one single group to handle the problem.

A very simplistic way of looking at a method for taking care of Oregon's problem, would be to remove seals, sea lions, polar bear, walrus, and sea otters from the act. This would give States control over the pinniped's and the species that are of primary concern to many people, whales, porpoise, manatees, would still be covered by the act.

Essentially, this is what our position in Oregon is, what we would like to see, and we recommend that the Congress reauthorize the act for 1 year, during which time the various States and concerned people could get together and develop acceptable amendments to the act, and make it a workable act.

Thank you.

[The following was received for the record:]

STATEMENT OF C. DALE SNOW, DepartmenT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE, STATE OF OREGON

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee-my name is C. Dale Snow and I am representing Dr. John R. Donaldson, Director of the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.

The State of Oregon is offering testimony in an effort to seek substantive changes to, and responsible interpretations of, the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (Public Law 92-522).

Because of my interest and responsibilities and the importance of marine mammals to residents of our state and the perceived impact of these animals on fisheries resources and the economy of Oregon's coastal communities, the Director has specifically requested that I present my personal credentials. I am a marine biologist specifically responsible for marine mammals in the state of Oregon. I received the Bachelor of Arts degree in 1951 from Linfield College, having majored in biology with a strong ecology emphasis. In 1952 I was granted the Master of Science degree at the University of Wyoming with a major in Wildlife Conservation and Management. My over 25 years of professional experience in the state of Oregon has all been in the marine environment. For 20 years I worked as a shellfish biologist, 16 years of that time as program leader in charge of all shellfish research and management. Since 1975 I have been the assistant marine region supervisor in charge of regional headquarters administration, marine mammals, marine environmetal protection coordination and public relations. My current address is Marine Science Drive, Newport, Oregon 97365.

Some of the results of my research and management efforts are contained in more than 15 scientific reports and papers, several popular accounts and numerous

annual reports and transactions of scientific meetings. I have served on the Governor's Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Task Force and the scientific committee of the Pacific Marine Fisheries Commission. I am presently serving on a United States Army Corps of Engineers Committee on offshore dredge spoil disposal and was recently appointed to the Southern Sea Otter Recovery Team. With that introduction, I would like to address the specific subject of this hearing.

It is our understanding that the purposes of these hearings are to: (1) consider reauthorization of the MMPA: (2) review the intent of that act; (3) determine its adequacy to manage efficiently our invaluable marine mammal resources; and (4) explore appropriate interrelationships between MMPA and other resources conservation legislation, including the Endangered Species Act and the Fishery Conservation and Management Act.

We are here to participate in that review, to point out the significant problems we face in attempting to implement conservation regimes for marine mammals in the margin ecosystem adjacent to Oregon, to suggest changes to the MMPA, and to provide information and assistance to the Congress, as requested.

The Maritime Mammal Protection Act of 1972 has been implemented, basically as a protectionist act. It imposed a moratorium on the taking of marine mammals which has, for all practical purposes, precluded their management. The major exemption to this in Oregon is the issuance of certificates of inclusion to commercial fishermen. These certificates are contrary to sound resource management, being free of any management, regulatory constraints or monitoring.

Rather than a protection act, what is needed is a conservation and management act. Conservation, as we interpret it, is the wise use of a natural resource. Management is the Act or art of directing or controlling how that conservation takes place. Good management requiries the capability to maintain populations (fish, birds or mammals) at a level that is compatible with their habitat. When necessary, the capability of removing animals surplus to their own populations, competing with other populations and habitat is critical to both competent management and to conservation as defined above.

While protection from taking is necessary in the case of endangered or threatened marine mammals, a blanket moratorium on the taking of all marine mammals has worked against the best interests of effective ecosystem management. All marine life is interrelated and a single group cannot be set aside and managed independently of other forms.

A mechanism supposedly exists for returning management to a state, but Alaska's experience in this area points out the difficulties faced by a state attempting to regain management authority and a waiver of the moratorium. Oregon's experience is similar. In 1973, Oregon submitted a management plan and request of waiver of the moratorium. After several months of bureaucratic road blocks, coupled with the knowledge that we would be responsible for half the cost of a program dictated by the Secretary of Commerce, without any parallel management authority, our Director terminated negotiations. Oregon has no voice in the management of marine mammals today, yet we annually spend significant amounts of money because of those species. Most such expenditures are in personnel time devoted to attending meetings and corresponding with people who are frustrated by the state's lack of action on what they perceive to be a serious threat to local economics and our fishery resources. Additional expenditures are made by the state in aerial censusing of marine mammal populations.

The necessity to involve the expertise and resources of coastal states in properly managing marine mammals of the continental shelf can only be realized by revising the Act. Federal preemption of important state functions, in the absence of federal action to accomplish those tasks, does nothing for the health or stability of marine mammal populations.

We feel that corrective amendments to the Marine Mammal Protection Act can be accomplished if there is a commitment to move ahead with the task. The state of Alaska's experience with the MMPA merits close scrutiny. Prior to passage of the MMPA, Alaska had the most extensive and scientifically sound marine mammal program in existence. Despite that record, the state has been unable to regain marine mammal management authority and we question that such a result was the intent of Congress. The Alaskan statement suggests several areas for revision of the Act and we agree with those suggestions which include: (1) clearly enunciated values for the upper and lower limits of the optimum sustainable population levels (OSP); (2) promotion of closer, more realistic relationship of the MMPA with the FCMA; (3) resumption of State's Authority for coastal species; and (4) federal cooperation with states. In addition, Oregon would like to see changes made in several other areas.

The following are some of the items suggested for revision.

(1) Moratorium.-Passage of the MMPA of 1972 preempted the states' right to manage marine mammals, specifically seals and sea lions in Oregon's case. Shortly after passage of the act we experienced a dramatic redistribution of seals and sea lions.

When actively harassed these animals stayed offshore and along the ocean shoreline. With cessation of harassment these animals returned to the rivers and estuaries where they historically occurred. During salmon and steelhead runs these animals can be found many miles inland, presumably feeding on salmon.

Since 1976 when we started censusing pinnipeds, we have observed a 40 percent harbor seal population increase from 3,000 to 5,000 animals. In some of our small estuaries these animals are probably approaching the maximum carrying capacity of the available habitat. If Oregon is not granted management authority to control numbers, then Congress must assure that such control becomes a federal function. (2) Harass.-Under terms of the Act, harassment of marine mammals is considered in the same context as taking or killing. Consequently, hatchery personnel cannot chase animals away from hatchery stream mouths and in the case of recreational crab fishermen they have to quit fishing because seals or sea lions rob the ring-nets of bait as fast as they set them. The term harass needs to be modified to where it is not considered to be as serious as taking.

(3) Optimum Sustainable Population.-No one seems to know what this actually means. It has neither a beginning nor an end and should be quantified as requested by Alaska.

(4) Marine Mammal Commission-Scientific Committee.-The Marine Mammal Commission and Scientific Committees served valuable functions following passage of the Act, but we feel that these groups have outlived their usefulness and should be abolished.

(5) Seals, Sea Lions, Polar Bears, Walrus and Sea Otters.—If these animals were removed from the Act, it would solve Oregon's problems, and probably those of several other states. The Act would still afford the desired protection for whales and manatees and yet allow state management of valuable pinniped resource.

We recognize that the issues we have addressed may be more complicated than they appear at the state level. If Congress feels that corrective action should be delayed at this time, we recommend that reauthorization of the MMPA for only one year during which time suggestions can be thoroughly reviewed before making changes. Delaying such changes beyond a year, however, appears inappropriate and we respectfully suggest deadlines for action next year.

Thank you for your time and for your thoughtful attention in listening to the suggestions from Oregon.

Mr. BREAUX. Gentlemen, we thank all of you for your presentations and efforts to summarize the testimony.

Mr. Skoog, from Alaska, you make a pretty strong point on page 6 of your testimony, when you point out in summary what the situation is in Alaska, in the sense that you have said right now, "for all practical purposes there has been no Federal management since 1972; there is practically no enforcement by Federal officials; and, the biological data base is deteriorating; there is no harvest monitoring of most species;" and you go on and talk about how bad the problem is since we passed the act, which is just contrary to what we were trying to accomplish when we adopted the act. How would Alaska be able to change that, if indeed the management program were able to be turned back to the State of Alaska? What would Alaska do differently than the Federal Government, in your opinion?

Mr. SKOOG. We would start paying some attention to these species, for one thing. As I mentioned in my testimony, prior to 1972 we had an ongoing marine mammal program that was a very effective one. It started immediately after statehood, in 1959, and was gradually building, and by the year 1972 it was a very effective one. We had biologists scattered along the coastal areas, along Alaska.

We had particularly addressed our attention to the walrus, in attempting to control the native harvest of the walrus.

Mr. BREAUX. Could you give us an estimate of how many personnel were involved in management programs under the State operation, when you had it, and an approximation of how much money was spent by the State in trying to manage the population?

Mr. SKOOG. We were spending about $200,000 a year on the program.

How many people were there, John?

Mr. BURNS. Six full time-Mr. Chairman, we had six full time species oriented biologists. We had approximately 15 people additionally working on those as aides, or occasionally for the need to monitor, or obtain specimens from harvest that are taken over a short period of time, we had the department of public safety involved in the enforcement effort, plus our investments included many of the fixed costs of maintaining buildings, laboratory space, and other facilities throughout many of the coastal areas, from Ketchican to southeastern Alaska to Point Barrow.

Mr. BREAUX. Could you give an estimate for the committee's benefit, what you would project if the program were given back to the State, that the State of Alaska would be able to earmark in terms of personnel, at least a ball park figure, of what you would expect for a monetary expenditure?

Mr. BURNS. Mr. Chairman, we would request, from our legislature, approximately $1.5 million of operating funds. Our positions would be basically at the same level as they were before, additional to those investments would be the investment of the department of public safety in enforcement efforts and, of course, the prorated costs of maintaining the facilities, much of the work which would be rechanneled towards marine resource, and particularly marine mammal management.

Mr. SKOOG. In addition, we have about 10 biologists scattered along the coasts, also part of whose duty would be associated with marine mammals.

Mr. BREAUX. I take it the big problem in the last several years in Alaska has tried to gain control of the management program, has been the problem with the Native exemption in the Federal act, and that is consistent with the act of Native and nonnative groups.

But you are not recommending to the committee, I take it, that we totally knock out the Native exemption that is contained in the act?

I take it you are apparently suggesting some effort, or trying to come up with a subsistence taking in the legislation, or what are you recommending?

Mr. SKOOG. Yes, there is a real need in Alaska to recognize that the marine mammals are very essential in the diet and the needs of the coastal people.

We would recommend that some provision for this be continued in the act.

Mr. BREAUX. Do you think that we can do that, and still be consistent with the problems that are presented by your State constitution prohibiting discrimination?

Mr. SKOOG. Yes, we have a State subsistence law now, that states a priority in the taking of fish and wildlife in Alaska, priority for subsistence use. Some language of that type could be included in the act.