Marine Mammal 

Protection Act 

of 1972 

1 Annual Report 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF CC)MMIE,RCE 

Na~tional Oceanic and Atm~ospheric Administration 

Na,tional Marine Fisheries Service 

Office of Protected Resources 
Report to Congress 

Marine Mammal 

Protection Act 

Annual Report 

July 1,198118 to December 31,1989 

Prepared by 

US. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adrninis;tratiam 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

Office of Prot~ected Resources 

Silver Spring, MD 2091 0 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Z . INTli'ODUCTZON .......................................................................................................................... I 

IZ . REA UTHORZZATZON AND AMENDMENT OF THE MA RZNE .MAMMAL 

PRO'TECTION ACT ...................................................................... .....,. ........................................... 2 

Interim Exemption for 4~onzmercial Fisheries ................................................................................. 2 

The Tuna-Dolphin Program ............................................................................................................. 5 

Reseizrch. Public Display. 2nd Enhancement Permits ................................................................... 8 

IZZ . STATUS REVIEWS AND CONSERVATION PLANS ............................................................. 10 

North Pacific Fur Seal ................................................................................................................... 10 

Steller Sea Lion ............................................................................................................................. 10 

ZV . STOCK ASSESSMENTS ............................................................................................................. 12 

Dolphin Stock Assessment Program ........................................................................................... 12 

Fishery Dependent Assessment Programs .................................................................................... 16 

Biological Assessment Program .................................................................................................... 17 

Coastal Marine Mammal Program ............................................................................................... 18 

Depleted Marine Mamma1.i ........................................................................................................... 20 

Marine Mammal Sighti, nx . Yurveys ................................................................................................ 22 

Marine Mammal Diet .................................................................................................................... 22 

North Atlantic Right Whale Program ............................................................................................ 22 

Large Cetacean Distribution and Habitat Usage ......................................................................... 23 

Humpback Whale Indiwidual Identification .................................................................................. 24 

Sighting Survey Methods ............................................................................................................... 24 

V . SUBSISTENCE TAKE: OF MARINE MAMMALS .................................................................... 25 

Bowhead Whales in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas ..................................................................... 25 

Northern Fur Seals on , rhe Pribilof Islands ................................................................................... 25 

VZ . PEAtMZT PROGRAMS ............................................................................................................... 27 

Scientific Research. Public Display. and Enhancement Permits .................................................. 27 

Incid'entallUnintentional Take Authorizations .............................................................................. 29 

VZI . COMMERCIAL FZSAYER YIMARZNE MAMMAL ZNTERACTZO'NS .................................... 31 

Tuna-Dolphin ............................................................................................................ Interactions 31 

Cal$ornia Sea LionlSteelhead Conflict ........................................................................................ 32 

Other Marine Marnma1lFi:;hery Interactions ................................................................................ 32 

Marine MammallReso~rce Conflicts ............................................................................................ 32 

Corn. mercial Fishery Monitoring ................................................................................................... 33 

VZIZ . MARINE MAMMAL STRANDING NETWORKS ................................................................. 34 

Investigation of the 1987-1988 East Coast Tursiops Die-off ......................................................... 34 

Regional Stranding Nemork Activities .......................................................................................... 36 

ZX . INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS AND ACTWZTZES ............................................................... 37 

Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living i~esources .................................... 37 

Convention for the Con:servation of Antarctic Seals ....................................................................... 39 

The Driftnet Impact M.onit~ring. Assessment and Control Act ..................................................... 40 

International North Pac.$c Fisheries Commission ...................................................................... 41 

International Whaling Cornmission .............................................................................................. 41 

U.S.. U.S.S.R. Marine .......................................................................................... lkfammal Project 44 

X . ZA W ENFORCEMENT .................................................................................................................. 46 

XI . LEGAL ACTIONS ........................................................, ................................................................ 48 

1989 MMI'A Annual Report 
11. REIAUTHORI[ZATION AND AMENDMENT OF THE 

MARINE MAMMAL PROTECTION ACT 

Since it was enacted in 1972, thlz Marine Mammal 

Protection Act has been amended several times. In 

reauthorizing the Act in 19813, Congress adopted a 

number of additional amendments which were 

signed into law by the Presiclenqt on November 23, 

1988. Among the more sulxtantive amendments 

are a provision to exempt, for an interim five-year 

period, most commercial fislhertnen from the incidental take provisions of the Act; inclusion of a 

new section setting forth procedures for carrying 

out status reviews of marine: mammal populations 

and preparation of conservation plans for depleted 

species and stocks; changes ltlo the program governing the take of marine mammals in the eastern 

tropical Pacific Ocean by the U.S. tuna fishery and 

the importation of yellowfin tuna taken by foreign 

fleets; and changes to criteria for issuing permits 

for scientilk research and public display and the 

creation of a new permit category. During 1989, 

NMFS made significant progrzss toward implementing the 1988 amendments. These activities 

are discussed here. 

Interim Exemption for C:onimercial 

Fisheries; 

The 1988 amendments to the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act, among other thilngs, established an 

interim five-year exemption program to (a) allow 

the incidental taking of irnarine mammals by 

commercial fishermen until October 1, 1993, and 

(b) collect information regarding marine mammal/ 

fishery interactions. The primary objective of the 

interim exemption program is to provide a means 

to obtain reliable information about interactions 

between commercial fishing activities and marine 

mammals while allowing commercial fishing to 

continue. The information collected in conjunction with the exemption system and information on 

the sizes and trends of marine mammal populations 

will be used to develop a long-term program t~o 

govern the taking of marine marnmalls associateld 

with colmmercial fisheries. 

List of Fisheries. As a preliminary s,tep to estab-. 

lishing the exemption program, the iiunendment.~ 

requireid the Se~ret~ary to compile a list of fisheries 

that operate in the exclusive economic: zone waters 

of the United States, determine wh.iich of those 

fisheries were involved in interactions with marine 

mammals, and dete:rmine the number of vessels cr 

persons involved in each fishery. The fisherie.~ 

were then to be classified into one of three categories. Category I fisheries are those in which there 

is a frequent incidental taking of marine mammals; 

Category 11 fisheries are those in which there is an 

occasiotnal incidental taking of marine mammals; 

and Category 111 fisheries are those :having a re:- 

mote lilkelihood of,, or no known incidental taking 

of marine mammals. 

The amendmentsrequired that the Secretary, within 

60 days of enactment, publish a notice in the: 

Federal Register and provide an opportunity for 

comment on the proposed list of fisheries. A final 

list of fisheries was to be made publil~; within 120 

days of' the date of enactment. 

Marine Mammal Exemption Program. Section 

114 (b)(2)(A) of the Act gives the {Secretary of 

Commerce authority to issue most commercial 

fishermen an annuail exemption from tlhe incidental 

taking provisions of the MMPA, provided that 

certain conditions are met. The 1988 amendrnen1.s 

required that., as of July 21, 1989, vcssel owners 

must be registered, have proof of an1 exemption, 

and fulfill certain reporting requirements in order 

to engage lawfully in any Category I lor II fishery. 

The regulatory req uirements established by the 

interim and final regulations for registration, re1989 MME'A Annual Repart 
porting, andobservation, as well 1 as the information 

management system developed to compile, process, store, and analyze the data received from the 

fishermen and observer reports comprises NMFS' 

Marine Mammal Exemption E'rogram (MMEP). 

Generally, in order to engage lawfully in fisheries 

in Categories I and 11, owners of vessels must 

register with the Secretary to obtain an Exemption 

Certificate to take marine mammals incidentally, 

must display or possess physical evidence of the 

exemption (i. e., annual sticker) and must submit 

periodic reports to NMFS. 6n addition, vessels 

engaged in Caltegory I fisheries must take onboard 

a natural resources observer, if requested by the 

Secretary. Fishing in a Categlory I or 11 fishery 

without an exemption is a violat ion of the MMPA, 

and owners and masters of commercial fishing 

vessels are sut~ject to penalties under this provision 

of' the law. Owners of vesse:ls in Category 111 

fisheries are not required to register with the Secretary to obtain an Exemption Certificate, but they 

are required to: (1) make all re:<asonablefforts to 

release animals unharmed; (2) use all practical 

non-injurious methods before any lethal intentional take of a marine mammal to protect gear, 

ca.tch or lives; and (3) report ad lethal incidental 

takings withiin ten days of th~e rc:turn from the 

fishing trip during which the lethal tdcing occurred. 

Mhrine Mammal Exemption Registration Requirements. All fishing vessel owners, or their 

authorized representatives, mulst register to obtain 

an Exemption Certificate and decal for each vessel 

that will be engaged in any Category I or I1 fishery. 

The initial registration covered the period from 

July 21, 1989, through the end of 1990. After 

December 3 1,1990, Exemption Celrtificate renewals are required each calendar year. 

To register, vessel owners must complete a Commercial Fisheries Exemption Registration Form 

and mail it with a $30.00 fee to any of the five 

NlMFS Regional Offices or the Office of Protected 

Resources in Silver Spring, MI:). 

Upon receipt of a completed registration form, the 

information is entered into the R4I.VIEP data base 

and an Exemption Certificate is issued to the registrant with the required decal, Vessel Owner Fishing Log and other information on how to comply 

with the MMPA amendments of 1988. 

Currently, more than 15,000 fishing vessels have 

been registered in the MMEP. Approxiitnately 90 

percent of the registered fishing vessels iue on the 

west coast: and 10 percent on the east coast. 

Marine M[ammal Reporting Requirements. To 

fulfill the reporting requirements under the MMPA, 

Exemption Certificate holders are required to 

maintain accurate daily logs of fishing effort and 

incidental takes of marine mammals. Fishermen 

must complete a daily entry in the Vessel Owner 

Fishing Log provided to them. If a fisherman 

participates in more than one fishery during a 

single day, a separate (entry must be completed for 

each fishely whether clr not marine mammals were 

taken. A c:urrenr Vessel Owner Fishing !Log must 

be kept onlboard during every fishing trip and must 

be available for inspection upon request by any 

State or Federal enforcement agent authorized to 

enforce the MMI'A orii designated agent of NMFS. 

All completed log sh~eets must be subrmitted to 

NMFS no later than December 3 1 of eac 11 year for 

a fisherman to obtain a current exemption certificate. Fishermen are encouraged to submit log 

sheets at the conclusion of each fishing season or 

on a regular basis throughout the year. If not 

previously submitted, Exemption Certif I icate renewal requests must include these reports. If a 

fishing vessel is not used in a Categoly I or I1 

fishery during an exemption period for which it 

was registered, a report to that effect is required. 

Marine Mammal Vessel Owner Fishing Lag forms 

require infbrmation on the fishery, fishing effort, 

gear type, and fish species involved; th,e marine' 

mammal s,pecies or a description of the marine 

mammals involved if the species is not known; 

number, date, and location of marine mammal 

incidental takes; type of interaction and any injury 

to the marine mammal; a description of a,ny intentional takes such as efforts to deter ariimals to 

1989 MMPA Annual Report 
1 protect gear, catch, or human lije by any lethal or 

non-lethal means; and any loss of fish or gear 

caused by rnarine mammals.. 

As noted above, vessel owners engaged in Category I11 fisheries, while not required to maintain 

a daily log, must report all le1.1nal incidental takings 

of marine mammals by contacting the nearest NMFS 

Regional Office within 10 days of the return from 

the fishing trip during which the incidental take 

occurred. A report of a lethal irrncidental take in a 

Category I11 fishery must include information on 

the fishery, fishing effort, ge:iu type, and fish species involved; the marine noamal species or a 

description of the animal(s) if ihe species is not 

known; number, date, and location of all lethal 

incidental tiikes of marine mammals; a description 

of any intentional lethal takes such as efforts to 

deter animals to protect gear,, catch, or human life; 

and any loss of fish or gear caused by marine 

mammals. 

NMFS has developed an informa tion management 

system to compile, store, process, and analyze data 

received from fishermen's reports and observer 

verification programs. 1nfonmar.ion will be made 

available to the public only in an aggregate form 

which does not directly or indinectly disclose the 

identity or business of any person. Such information is availlable upon request and, depending on 

the nature of the requested information, appropriate user fees may be chargedl for the information. 

Marine Mammal Observer Program. Section 

114 (e) of the MMPA requires the Secretary to 

place observers on Category I vessels to monitor 

between 20 and35 percent of the jishingoperations 

by vessels in the fishery. 'The purpose of the 

observer coverage is (a) to olbta~ln statistically reliable infonnation on the species and number of 

marine marnrnals incidentallby taken in a fishery, 

(b) to verifj the adequacy (of self-reporting by 

fishermen, imd (c) to identify possible means for 

reducing such takes. The extmt of observer coverage is detexmined as a percentage of the fishing 

effort or activity rather than as a percentage of the 

number of vessels engaged in the fishery. 

When determining the distribution c!~f observers 

among fisheries ancl vessels in a particular fishery, 

NMFS will be guided by the following standards: 

(1) the requirements to obtain the best available 

scientific information; (2) the requirement that 

assignment of observers is fair andequitable among 

fisheries and among vessels in a fishery; (3) the 

requirernent that no individual person or vessel, or 

group of persons orvessels, be subject to excessive: 

or overly burdensome observer coverage; and (4) 

where practicable, the need to minimize costs ancl 

avoid duplication. 

NMFS is not required to place an observer on a1 

Category I vessel if (1) statistically rel.iable infor-. 

mation can be obtained from observers on processing vessels to which Category I fishing vessels 

deliver a catch that has not been taken ionboard the: 

fishing vessel; (2) ithe facilities of the vessel for 

housing an observer or for carrying out the func-. 

tions of the observer are so inadequate or unsafe: 

that the health or safety of the observer or the safe: 

operation of the vessel would be jeopardized; or 

(3) an observer is not availlable. 

The first exception contemplates the situation where: 

a Category I fishing vessel (does not bring the catch1 

onboard, but rather delivers it directly 1.0 a floating 

processor on which an observer is placed. 

With respect to exception 2, the adequacy of fishing vessels to take an observer onboard, NMFS will. 

make thle necessary deternlinations on a case-bycase basis. 

Exception 3, unavailability of observers, includes 

situation~s where NM[FS may have inadequate funds 

to cover a full obsenrer program or may not be able 

to employ or contract for safficient qualified personnel to fully staff an observer program. To 

minimize these situations, lVMFS intends to use, to 

the maximum extent possible, observers placed 

under other authorities, such as the Magnuson 

Fishery Conservation and Pvlanagement Act to fulfill the olbserver requirements of the WIN6PA. 

19891 MMPA Annual Reporl. 
If IWS is unable to meet the required observer 

level, observers will be allocated among Category 

I fisheries accclrding to the following list of prioritiels as specifieclin Section 1 14 (e)(3) of the MMPA: 

(1) fisheries that incidentally take marine marnmads from population stocks designated as depleted; (2) fisheries that incide~ataLly take marine 

mammals from population stocks that are declining; (3) fisheries other than those described above, 

in which the greatest incidental take of marine 

mammals occur, and (4) any other Category I 

fisheries. 

If observers cannot be placed on (Category I vessels 

at the required level, NMFS must establish alternative observation and verification programs to 

supplement or replace the statutorily mandated 

on board observer program. Any alternative observer prograrn may include dkect observation of 

fishing activitj es from vessels, airplanes, or points 

on shore. Provided sufficient resources are availablle, an alternative program may also be established in any fishery for which relial~le information 

is not otherwise obtainable. Voluntary observer 

programs for Category II and 111 fisheries may be 

considered, provided they meet the safety and 

scientific infomation criteria set forth for Category 

I fisheries obsierver programs and that the observer 

requirements for Category I f~sheries have been 

met. 

Tlhe Tuna-Dolphin Program 

On January 6, 1989, NMFS published in the Federal Register an interim final irult: implementing 

the following changes to the tmna-dolphin regulations as mandated by the 1988 amcmdments to the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act. 

Sundown Sets. Mortality rates in so-called 

"sundown" sets, purse seine sets $hat extend into 

darkness, are substantially higher than in sets completed during daylight hours. An experiment conducted by the Inter- American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) and the Porpoise Rescue Foundation showed that the use of high-intensity lights 

reduced mcrtality rates in sundown sets. Hased on 

this study, NOAA issued a regulation, effective 

July 1, 1986, requiring the installation and use of 

high-intensity lighting systems by certificated tuna 

vessels. A ireview of all sets between July 1,1986, 

and June 30,1988, showed th,at the kill rate in sets 

extendingintodarkness was still significantly higher 

(3.7 times) than in day1 ight sets. The interim final 

rule requires U.S. tuna fishing vessels setting on 

marine mammals to complete the process of 

backdown to remove dolphins from the net no later 

than 30 minutes after sundown. The backdown 

procedure is the best and safest means of releasing 

mammals fiom the net once they are encircled. If 

this part of a set takes place in dark~~ess, the 

effectiveness of the release is compromised because of the reduced visibility. In 1989, dolphin 

mortality was 36percent lower than the 15188 level. 

Most of thj s reduction was attributable tcrl the prohibition on sundown sets. 

Experimental Fishing Permit. The interim final 

rule introcluced an experimental fishin,g permit 

provision that allows 1WS to waive certain procedural regulations to encourage the development 

of new dolphin-saving techniques in the purseseine fishery. 

Use of Explosives. Since the early 1980s, the U.S. 

tuna fleet had been using a variety of explosive 

devices to herd dolphins during fishing operations. 

In the 19818 ameindments to tlhe MMPA, (Congress 

prohibited the use of' explosive devicels in tuna 

purse-seine operations that involve marine mammals, with one exception. That exceptioin allowed 

the continued use of Class C explosive:, devices, 

approved by the U.S. Department of Transportation, pend:ing the outcome of a study to determine 

whether the use of such devices would cause 

physical impairment or increased mortality of 

marine mammals. The interim final rule prohibits 

the use of all but Class C explosive devices. 

In November 1989, the Service's Southwest Fisheries Center initiated a research program on sealcontrol devices (SCDs), which are used to herd 

dolphins cluring yellolwfin tuna ]purse-seine fishing 

1989 MMPA Annual Report 
1 operations in the eastern trc11pic;d Pacific Ocean. 

The study included open-water experiments, analysis of the chemistry and explosive energy of SCDs 

used in the purse seine fishery, review of pertinent 

literature and analysis of observcr logs documenting purse seine sets on dolph.ins. 

On Novemter27-29,1989, a workshop was held to 

attempt to determine whether rhe use of SCDs 

results in physical impairment or increased mortality to dolphins involved. Participants included 

representatives of the fishing industry and the 

environmental community an~d experts in pertinent 

scientific fields. Based on the results of the workshop and related background documents, the Secretary extended the ban on use of explosives to 

include Class C seal-control devices. A rule prohibiting the use of explosives will1 be published by 

April 1, 1990, as mandated by Congress. 

0 bserver Accommodations. In April 1989, NMFS 

published a final rule setting cut the minimum 

living accornrnodations for government observers 

placed on U.S. tuna purse-seine vessels. Provisions were also included to penrnit placement of 

female obseirvers. The action fb1lc)wed the Service's 

determination that it was necessary to address 

problems relating to accornucnotdations for male 

observers and to avoid problems that may arise 

with the placement of female observers on tuna 

vessels with all-male crews. The terms "harassment" and "'sexual harassmeird' 'are defined. 

Operator F'erformance Standards. In the 1988 

MMPA amendments, Con;pess mandated the 

Secretary to develop and implement a system of 

performance standards to idienttfy, train, and, if 

necessary, remove certificate: hoiiders with consistently and substantially high~er incidental marine 

mammal mortality rates. To meet this requirement, 

NMFS considered avariety of performance systems. 

These included individual vessel quotas; vessel or 

operator performance ratings based on the kill of 

marine manunals per ton of yellowfin tuna caught 

in association with marine mammals; and a multiple-standard system for rating operator performance. In November 198'9, IWFS published 

proposed regulations to implement a performance 

system, along with an environmental assessment 

of the possible effects of the proposed action. 

The proposed perfo~mance system will track individual olperators and measure their p~~rformance 

against is kill-per-tam standard. A mortality rate 

that excmds the fleet average rate by more than 50 

percent will be considered as failing to meet the 

performance standard. The NMFS Regional Director will then request that the genleral permit 

holder review the trip records and provide counsel 

to the vessel operator. If the operator's certificate 

is suspended, remedial mining to review marine 

marnrnal release and safety techniques will be 

required before mabg another trip. Vessel certificate holders will continue to be responsible for 

ensuring that the vessel has the required marine 

mammal safety gear and that it is maintained in 

seaworthy condition. 

Final regulations an the peirformance standard are 

expected to be published in 1990 after review of 

public comments. 

Importation of. YellowlFin Tuna :and Tuna 

Products. In March 1989, NMFS published an 

interim final rule amending marincr: mammal 

regulations on the importation of yell.owfin tuna 

from nations with purse seine vessels fishing in the 

eastern bropical Paci:fic Ocean. For the first time, as 

required by the 1988 MMPA amencllments, the 

importr~:gulations cover intermediary nations, that 

is, nations that may or may not fish in the area but 

that import yellowfin tuna and subsequently offer 

tuna or tuna prodncts for importation into the 

United States. 

As in previous rules, nations purse seining for 

yellowfin tuna in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean 

that wish to export tuna to the United States must 

have a marine marnrnal protection program for 

their purse seine fishery that is comparable to that 

of the United States. They also must achieve an 

incidental mortality rate no greater than twice that 

of the United States by the end of 1!>89 and no 

greater than 1.'25 times that of the U.S. fleet by the 

1989' MMPA ~LMu~ Reporl: 
end of 1990. 'They must also limit eastern spinner 

and coastal spotted dolphin mor-talrties to no more 

than 15 and 2: percent, respecd.vehy of their total 

mortalities. 

The definition of a comparable iregulatox-y program 

governing the: incidental taking of marine marnmals in the fishery has been expanded to include 

(1) the same prohibitions as are applicable to U.S.- 

flag vessels or may become appllicable in the future, 

including a prohibition on setling on schools of 

single species of dolphins, a prohibition on sundown sets and a prohibition on the use of explosives; (2) a system to identify and provide training 

for vessel ope:rators with a higlh~ dolphin mortality 

ra.te; and (3) im observer sampling level that will 

provide a reliable estimate of the rnortality rate of 

th~at nation's fleet. Tuna imports from a nation that 

fads to comply with the import regulations will be 

bi~nned. This expanded definition will take effect 

at the beginning of the 1990 fishing season. 

Any nation fiom which yellowfin tuna or tuna 

products will be imported into the United States 

must certify that it has acted to1 ban importation of 

yellowfin tuna and tuna produlcts from any nation 

which is bann,ed from directly jimporting them into 

the United States. Failure to do so will result in a 

ban of that intermediary nation's yellowfin tuna 

aind tuna prolducts. Should a ban persist for six 

months, the Secretary isrequired to certify that fact 

to the President. Sanctions imposed as a result of 

the certification are at the discretion of the President. 

P, final import rule will be publ.iisht:d early in 1990. 

Mortality rate comparability :standards are being 

reviewed and may be revised. 

1C)iscussions with Foreign Glovernments. Congress mandaied in the 1988 MMPA amendments 

that the Secretary initiate discussims with foreign 

governments whose vessels participate in the eastern tropical l'acific Ocean yellowfin tuna fishery 

fior the purpose of concluding international arrangements for the conservation of marine mammals taken incidentally in the course of harvesting 

tuna. Agreements should include prov.i.sions for 

(1) cooperative research into alternative. methods 

of locating and catching yellowfin tuna which do 

not involve the taking of marine mammals;(2) cooperative research on the status of affected marine 

mammal populations stocks; (3) reliable monitoring of the: number, rate, and species of marine 

mammals taken by vessels of harvesting nations; 

(4) limitations on incidental take levels based upon 

the best scientific infomation availab1e;and (5) the 

use of the best marine: mammal safety techniques 

and equipiment that are economically and technologically practicable to reduce the incidental kill 

and serious injury of'nnarine mammals to insignificant levels approaching a zero mortality and serious injury rate. 

Annual Tuna-Dolphin Review Meeting. The first 

of three annual meetrngs to examine progress made 

by the international tuna fleet toward reducing the 

killing and serious injury of dolphins incidental to 

tuna fishing operations in the eastern tropical Pacific was held in December 1989. Attending were 

representatives of the: National Academy of Sciences, the Marine Mammal Comrnission~, environmental antd conservation organizations, the U.S. 

tuna indus try, foreign tuna fishing nations, congressional staff members, and other Federal government officials. NMFS, IATI'C, and the: Porpoise 

Rescue Foundation presented informatvon on the 

status of dolphin population research, recent technological developments to reduce marin~e mammal 

mortality, and the performance of the U.S. and 

foreign tuna fleets. 

The consensus of th~e meeting was (I) dolphin 

stocks in the eastern tropical Pacific are not in 

danger of extinction or depletion; (2) efforts should 

continue to reduce dolphin mortality to insignificant levels approaching a zero mortality and serious injuwrate; (3) alternate fishing methods should 

be found that do rmt involve dolphins; and (4) 

foreign nations may require more time to meet 

U.S. import standards for yellowfin tuna, even 

though substantial progress has been made in reducing dolphin mortidity. 

1989 MMPA A.nnual Report 
1 NMFS will convene additional tuna-dolphin review meetin gs, in 1990 and 199 1. Under the 1988 

 amendment:^, the Service must report back to Congress in 1992 on the results of efforts to reduce the 

killing of dolphins in the eastern tropical Pacific 

tuna fishery. 

Alternative Fishing Methods. A, contract study to 

evaluate alternative fishing methods was initiated 

with the National Academy of Sciences in September 1989. The Academy appointed a committee of 

technical experts to review scimtific and tech- 

~nical information relevant to promising new techniques for finding and catching yellowfin tuna. 

NMFS has requested that the conunittee give special consideration to techniques that do not directly 

mvolve dolphins. The commit tee will examine the 

biology and ecology of the yellowfin tuna and 

dolphins with which they conrunonly associate, as 

well as the nature of the "luna-dolphin bond." 

'They will also identify cunentlly available and 

promising new techniques for reducing the incidental drowning of dolphins im nlets. 

The committee held its first meeting in December 

1989, during, which participants agreed on a working outline for the report, assigned tasks, and developed a work plan and tentative schedule for subsequent meetings. A final repon is expected in 

March 199 1. 

Access to Clbserver Data. An agreement was 

concluded in 1989 with the 1.ATTC that ensured 

NMFS access to data collecte~d by IATTC observers placed on U.S. tuna vessels arid which permitted use of such data for enfi3rct:ment purposes. 

This landmark agreement provided the regulatory 

rnechanism to allow foreign nations to have access 

to observer (data for their tuna fleets in order to 

enforce marine mammal regdations. 

Tuna-Dolph~in Workshop. Pi review of the international tunal-dolphin program w;is held in March 

1989 in Sari Jose, Costa Rica, under the joint 

sponsorship of the NMFS and I.4TTC. Eightythree government and industry delegates from 14 

nations atten~ded. Discussions focused on research 

on'the status of dolphin stocks, efforts to monitor 

and enurnerate dolphin mortality, the ir:~ternational 

observer program, and future cooperative efforts to 

continue the reduction of dolphin mortality in the 

tuna fishery. 

At the workshop, NIMFS officials presented information cln the effects of the 1988 MMlPA amendments on tuna import regulations. Nations present 

expressed concern about their ability to (1) achieve 

a dolphin mortality rate of two times the U.S. rate 

in 1989; (2) stay within the required maximum 

limit of 15 percent eastern spinner and two percent 

coastal spotted dolphins as a proportion of the total 

take; and. (3) establish 100 percent observer coverage in 1989. Observer coverage for the years 1986, 

1987, and 1988 are shown below in Table 1. 

Table I. Percent Observer Coverage 

- Country 1986 1987 1988 .- 

Ecuador 7.9 9.5 35.9 

Mexico 26.1 27.0 38.2 

Panama 42.8 13.3 30.0 

Vanuatu 31.6 34.5 30.0 

Venezuela 21.7 21.5 31.0 

Research, Public Display, and 

Enhancement Permits 

In its 1988 amendments to the MMPA, Congress 

amended the provisions governing scientific research and public display permits and added a new 

permit category to allow authorization o~f activities 

aimed at enhancing the survival or recovery of 

marine rrrammal populations. However, a permit 

may be issued for this new purpose only under 

limited conditions. 

1989 MMPA Annual Report 
1 The amendments require that applilzitions for public display pe~mits open their facililies to the public 

on a regularly scheduled basis and that access to the 

facilities not 1x limited or restricted other than by 

th~e charging of an admission fce. Additional 

amendments require that applicants for scientific 

research permits provide infc~irrnation indicating 

that the scientific purpose of the pelrmit is bonafide 

and does not involve unnecessary duplication of 

research. Essentially, these a~memdments codify 

existing regulatory criteria for scientific research 

permits. Other amendments add to these basic 

re:quirements for scientific re: search permits by 

prohibiting rrsearch involving a Lethal take of a 

rr~arine mamnlal if a nonlethal method for conducting the research is feasible. Artd, where a research 

pcrmit would involve the lethall take of a species or 

stock designated as depleted, issuance of a permit 

is prohibited unless the research will directly benefit that species or stock or unless the: research 

fulfills a c:ritically important need. 

Duringl989, NMFS has considered andl included 

the requirements of the 1988 amendments in processing pe:rmit applications. However, full implementation of the an3e:ndments will only be complete at the time the permit regulations are revised. 

In recognition of the long-standing need to update 

its marine mammal permit regulations, and at approximate:ly the same time the Congress; was considering the 1988 arnendments to the Act, NMFS 

initiated a comprehensive review of ,its permit 

program. The issues which arise from the 1988 

amendments, particularly those which affect public display and scientific research pe:lmits, are 

being addressed as a part of this review (See page 

27). 

1989 MMPA Annual Report 
III. STi4TUS RE7i'IK WS AND 

The 1988 amendments to the IMMPA established a 

new section (section 1 15) which sets forth procedures under which status reviews of marine mam- 

~nal populations are to be conducted. In addition, 

IWS is directed to prepare conservation plans as 

soon as possible for all depleted species or stocks 

unless it is determined that such a plan will not 

promote the conservation of the species or stock. 

NMFS is specifically required to complete conservation plans for the North Pacific fur seal by 

December 3 I, 1989, and for the Steller sea lion by 

December 3 1, 1990. 

PMFS has developed draft guide1 mes for developing and implementing coordinatc:d recovery programs for endangered and threatened marine 

nnarnmals. Although preparation of recovery plans 

is required under the Endangered Species Act 

(ESA), not the MMPA, recovery plans will be 

developed under the ESA so that they meet the 

conservation plan requiremeints of the MMPA. 

These guidelines discuss the role of recovery teams, 

the content of recovery plans, and monitoring and 

tracking of recovery actions. These guidelines 

were available for public review through April 

1989. On May 30, 1989, NMFS published a 

proposed priority system for developing recovery 

plans and implementing tasks in recovery plans. 

Final guidelines will be published in mid-1990. 

This system will be used as a guide to set priorities 

for funding and performance of irtdividual recovery tasks. 

Of the 24 endangered and threatened species under 

NMFS jurisdiction, 14 are marine mammals. Recovery plans are needed for 13 of these species. A 

recovery plan completed in 1983 for the Hawaiian 

monk seal is being implemenltled and will be updated based on new information. NMFS is currently developing recovery plans for the right whale 

and the humpback whale. 

CONSERVATION PLANS 

North Pacific Fur Seal 

In thelate 1970s andearly 1980s, theesti~mated size 

of the Pribilof Islands northern fur seal (C'allorhinus 

ursinur) population declined to less than 50 percent of its estimated size in the early 1950s. As 

noted earlier, the 1988 amendments to the MMPA 

require that the Service complete a conservation 

plan for the species b:y December 3 1,1989. A draft 

conservation plan for northern fur seals has been 

written outlining the research and management 

measures needed to assess the status and recovery 

of the population. The draft plan reviews the status 

of the Pribilof Islands population, possible causes 

ofpast declines of northern fur seals, current threats 

to the population and its habitat, and gaps in critical 

information, and recommends research and management actions to evaluate whether the population is recovering. Highest priority is placed on 

obtaining data to determine why fur seals, especially juveniles, are dlying at sea, the survival and 

recruitment rates for females, and the causes of pup 

mortality on and near the rookeries. At the end of 

1989, the draft plan was being reviewed within the 

Service. 

Steller Sea Lion 

Available information indicates thar the number of 

S teller seal lions (E~rn~etopius jbatus) has declined 

substantially since the late 1970s in several areas. 

In response to the decline in sea lion numbers, on 

May 6, 1988, the Service published an advanced 

notice of proposed rulemaking to designate the 

species as "depleted" under the MMPA. The 

conservatiion plan is due by December 3 1,1990. In 

view of the continuing population decline, the 

Environmental Defense Fund petitioned NMFS on 

November 21, 1.989, for an emergency listing of 

1989 h4MPA Arr:nual Report 
Steller sea lions as "endangered" under the Endangered Species Act. At the end of 1989, the Service 

was reviewing the petition and preparing a response. 

Humpback Whale Recovery Plan 

Humpback whales (Megaptera ncwaeangliae) have 

been severely reduced in numl~er as a result of 

commercial whaling. Prior to oommercial whaling,, the world\vide population is thought to have 

been in excess of l25,OOO. Today, pe:rhaps no more 

than about 10,COO to 12,00Oexist, atout 10 percent 

of the estirnatjed initial numbers.?'he humpback 

whale has been on the endangered species list since 

June 2, 1970. Under section 4 of the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, a recovery plan is required if 

it is determined that development sf a plan would 

help the species to increase in abundance. In July 

1987, the Service appointed a humpback whale 

recovery team to assist in prepariing a recovery 

plan. During 1988 and 1989, the recovery team 

deweloped the draft recovery plan which was distributed for comments to the lputdic in October 

1989. Commmts were received from Federal and 

State government, academia, scientific and envircmmental co~nmunities, and t1tle public. The recovery team is using these comments to compile 

the final plan, 

The draft plan reviews the natuml history of the 

humpback whale, concentratirig an the reproductive stocks or feeding aggregations which regularly 

spend portions of the year ill1 waters under the 

jurisdiction of the United States. It identifies a 

sleries of recommended goals and actions for (1) 

maintaining ,and enhancing the habitats of humpback whales,; (2) identifying and reducing death, 

injury or disturbance to the whales caused by 

humans; (3) performing research to evaluate 

progress toward recova-y goals; and (4) implementing the plan through improved administration 

and coordination. 

Right Whale Recovery Plan 

The northeirn right whale (Balaena glacialis) is 

considered to be the woirld's most endange1:cd large 

whale. In July 1987, the Service appointed a 

recovery te,am to help cievelop a recovery plan for 

right whales. In May 1988, the Service asked the 

team to review a draft recovery plan which the 

Service had developed. At its initial mee:ting, the 

recovery team concluded that the draft plan would 

require substantial rwisions and additiolns. The 

team aged to develop and submit to the !Service a 

revised draft recovery plan. At the end off 1989, it 

was expected that a tlraft plan would be available 

for review early in 1990. 

Hawaiian Monk Seal Recovery Plan 

During the 19th century, the Hawaiian monk seal 

(Mowchus schauinslandi) population came close 

to extinction as a result of harassment :and overexploitation. A modest comeback during the fist 

half of this century appeared to reverse itself in 

subsequent years. The species is listed as endangered and depleted. In 1983, the Service adopted 

a recovery plan for the species, but this quickly 

became outdated. NMFS has appointed a new 

recovery team to update the earlier plan^. 
IV. STOCK ASSIESSMENTS 

Dolphin Stock Assessrrient Program 

The Southwest Fisheries Center is responsible for 

identifying trends in the relative abundance of 

dolphin stocks taken incidentally by tuna purse 

seiners in the eastern tropicall Pacific. The status of 

the spotted dolphin ( Stenella attenuata) is of special 

concern because it is the princip,al species taken by 

the fishery. On July 29, 1989, two NOAA ships, 

the David Starr Jordan and theMcArthur, departed 

San Diego to conduct the fourth year of research in 

the eastern tropicalPacific Ocean. The Jordan was 

equipped with a Hughes 500D helicopter. 

The primary objective of the: survey was to collect 

information on the density, size, and species composition of dolphin schools in the eastern tropical 

Pacific. F'opulations of five target species are 

impacted by tuna purse seining in the area: spotted 

dolphin (Stenella attenuata), spinner (S. 

longirostri,~), striped (S. coe'ruleoalba), common 

(Delphinus delphis) and Fra.ser's (Lagenodelphis 

hosei) dolphins. A second research objective was 

to collect information on the physical and biological environments where dolphins were found. The 

vessels returned to San Diego on December 7, 

1989. 

The vessels surveyed along predetermined 

tracklines during the four-month survey. The 

tracklines are devised for line transect applications, and distribution of effort between regions 

was calculalted using density estimates from earlier 

surveys. The Jordan and the McArthur traveled 

18,196 nm and 20,488 nm, respectively, in the 

study area. Preliminary results indicate that within 

the study area, 38 percent of' the effort was in the 

inshore region and 28, 15, ,amd 19 percent in the 

middle, western, and southern regions, respectively. 

The cetacean survey was comducted by maintaining a visua:l watch using two 25 -power binoculars 

mounted on the port and starboard sides of the 

flying bridge of each vessel. Binoculars were 

mounted on pedestals at a height of 10lm above the 

water, giving a maximum ship-to-horizon sighting 

distance of approximately 10 krn. Daily watch for 

marine mammals was maintained during daylight 

hours (;approximately 0600 to 1800 hours local). 

Watch .was stood by two teams of three observers 

on each vessel (six observers per vessel), with each 

team rotating every two hours. 

On sighting a marine mammal school, observers 

recorded information on such factors as time and 

position of the vessel, sighting cue and bearing and 

distance to the cue, and values of environmental 

parameters at the time of sighting. "The bearing 

from the vessel to the sighted school was read from 

an azimuth ring on the binocular moulilt. Distance 

to the sighted school was recorded as a reticle 

distance read from a reticle mounted in the binocular eyepiece. When necessary to conl&-rn species 

identification, researchers photographed the school. 

Simulta.neously, the Computer Assisi~ed Sighting 

Technology (CAST) systemcontinuously recorded 

bearing information. Data collected from the CAST 

system on this and previous cruises will be analyzed for reliability in estimating distance between 

the trackline and a sighted school of dolphins. 

Preliminary calculations indicate that 1,4 18 schools 

of marine mammals were sighted. Forty percent of' 

all schools sighted (569 schools) contained target 

species. Prelirninaryresults of sightings by species 

for both vessels combined are presented in Table 12 

on page: 13. 

The dolphin stock assessment progmm has prepared a detailed set of results for the: 1989 data. 

Estimates of relative abundance for id1 stocks of 

spotted,, spinner and Fraser's dolphins were substantially higher than 1988 estimates. Estimates of 

relative abundance for all stocks of common and 

striped dolphins were lower than in 1988, but 

1989 MMPA ,4mual Repoirt 
Table 2. Preliminary resulfii of cetacean sightings collected from NOAA ships David 

Starr Jordan and McArthur during the 1989 eastern tropical Pacific dolphin survey. 

-- - 

g 1 kg2 Leg3 Leg4 Total 

Spotted dolphin 

Spinner dolphin 

Comnon dolphin 

Striped dolphin 

Roug,h-toothed dolphirl 

Bottlenose dolphin 

Risso's dolphin 

White-sided dolphin 

Frastx's dolphin 

Unidentified dolphin 

Pygmy killer whale 

False killer whale 

Pilot whale 

Killer whale 

Sperm whale 

Dwarf sperm whale 

Melon- headed whale: 

Bezdsed whale 

Mesoplodon whale 

ROI-qua1 whale 

Bryde's whale 

Blue whale 

Humpback whale 

Bottlenose whale 

Unidentified small whale 15 

Unidentified large whale 7 

Unidentified whale 7 

Unidentified cetacean 5 

I 1989 MMPA Annual Report 
Table 3. 1989 estimates of relative population size (Nv) (in thousands of animals), standard 

error (SE(Nu)), and coe@ient of variation CV(Nu) by stoek,for target dolphin species in 

total study area of the eaeterrr tropical PacCfi. 

Dolphin Species and S tot:k 'ij SE<Nijl CWi> 

spotted 

Coastal 

Northern Offshore 

Southern Offshore 

Total 

Spinner 

Costa Rican 

Eastern 

Northern White'kll y 

Southern Whitebelly 

Total 

Common 

Northern Tropical 

West Central Tropical 

East Central Trqpicail 

Southern Tropical 

Total 

Striped 

Northern Tropical 

West Central Tropical 

East Central Tropicall 

South Tropical 

Total 

- -- 

Total of all target sjwiw 10,818.7 2,195.7 0.203 

19239 MMPA, Annual Report 
Table 4. Number of schools of snwU cetaceans photographed during dolphin surveys in 

1987,2988, and 1989. The number of helicopter hours is given in parentheses. 

Leg 1 Leg 2 Leg 3 Leg 4 Total 

higher than 1'986 or 1987. Trend analysis for the 

first three yeius indicates no sign:~ficant trends in 

population abundance for any of the target stocks. 

It should be realized that the power of the trend 

analysis will only be acceptable after arninimumof 

six surveys, and even then the power of the trend 

analysis will be unacceptable for some stocks because of the limited number of sightings per year. 

Table 3, on page 14, lists the relar!ive estimates of 

population abundance, standard error, and coefficient of variation by stock for target dolphin species in the total study area of the eastern tropical 

Pacific. 

Aerial Photography To Estimate School Size. 

For the third year, aerial phomgraphs were taken 

during surveys to calibrate obsenrers' estimates of 

dolphin school size, Typically, it is difficult to 

estimate the size of dolphin schools from a ship, 

especially fix- schools of several thousand individuals. Systematic errors in estimates of dolphin 

school size result in biases in estimation of dolphin 

{abundance. To resolve the question of bias, a 

helicopter-based aerial photography program was 

incorporated into the design of'thc: dolphin surveys. 

The helicopter operates from a specially-constructed 

platformon theJordan. Two high-resolultion aerial 

reconnaissance cameras are mounted below the 

helicopter fuselage. Large-format 5-inch photographs are taken of dolphin schools. From these 

photographs an estimate can be made ofthe number of dolphins in a school and individual observer 

estimates can be calibrated against the more precise photo estimates. 

The helicopter flew a total of 118 hours (including 

11 hours devoted to pinniped and bird surveys and 

maintenance flights) during the survey. A total of 

41 days were spent photographing small cetaceans 

and whales, averaging three hours per day. Seventy-four small cetacean schools and 10 whale 

schools were photographed from the helicopter. 

The number of schools photographed during each 

of the four legs of the 1987,1988, and 1989 cruises 

are given in Table 4, above. Researchers are 

examining photographs taken during the 1989 survey to determine which can be used 11.0 estimate 

school size. The Southwest Fisheries (Center will 

complete a report of school size estimates and 

shipboard observer calibrations before the end of 

the 1990 field season. 

1 989 MMPA Annual Report 
Fishery Dependent Assessnnent Programs 

Patterns of intra- and inter-<annual variability in 

cetacean distribution are currently being examined 

in relation to environmental ~rariability. The work 

is part of a six-year study monitoring trends in 

abundance of eastern tropical Pacific dolphin 

populations affected by the tuna purse-seine fishery. The staff of the Fishery Dependent Assessment Program is monitoring the physical and biological environment to interpret distribution changes 

in dolphin abundance and ultimately help interpret 

apparent changes in cetacean abundance. Preliminary results show that these inter-annual changes 

are correlat~d with nutrient a~railability and phytoplankton abundance. 

The eastern tropical Pacific supports a diverse and 

abundant cetacean fauna, including species that 

feed on plimkton, cephalopods, and fish. Geographic distributions and nlultivariate statistical 

analyses indicate at least two basic patterns of 

cetacean ha.bitat in the eastern tropical Pacific. The 

first type (which includes spotted and spinner dolphins [Stenella attenuata] and [S. longirostris]) is 

characterized by warm, olig~otrophic tropical surface water over thermocline: depths intermediate 

for the region. The second type (e.g., which includes common dolphins [Delphinus delphis], pilot whales I:Globicephala mrcrcv-hyncha] and blue 

whales [Balaenoptera musculus]) is characterized 

by cool and productive upwelling-modified water 

along the equator, coastal shelves and near the 

Costa Ricatn Dome. 

Inter-annual changes were observed in the distribution of common, spotted, and spinner dolphins 

during 1986-1988. During the 1987ElNiiioevent, 

with warnn surface temperatures and unusually 

deep themnocline and low chla~rophyll concentrations in equatorial waters, c:ommon dolphins contracted their range to the east of 90" W, and spotted 

dolphins were unusually abundant along the equator. During La Niiia in 1988 (with low surface 

temperatures and shallow nhemocline along the 

equator and in tropical waters e,ast of about 95" W), 

common dolphins were observed along the equator 

to 1 10' W, while spotted dolphins were relatively 

less abundant near the equator and in the easternmost part of the region north of the equator. The 

inter-annual changes in the environmen~ were larger 

in absolute magnitude during 1986-1988 than they 

were before, during and after the extreme 1982- 

1983 El Niiio. Consequently, the cha.nges in annualdisbributionduring 1986-1988 should bearnong, 

the most extreme inter-annual changes that occur 

in response to climatic variability. 

From the field data collected on vessel surveys, the 

Center is now investigating associations of cetacean sightings with mesoscale patterns of environmental indices, including comprehmsive strip 

transects of pelagic bird abundance and cornmunity composition. Goals include dweloping a 

simple process to use information on the physical 

and biological environment to interpret inter-annual changes in relative abundance of the cetaceans ofthe eastern tropical Pacific, as indicated by 

the line transect surveys. 

One of the goals of the NMFS research1 program om 

eastern tropical Pacific dolphins is to evaluate thle 

use of observer data for estimating trends in abundance of dolphin populations. This led to development of a computer model to simulate the tuna 

vessel observer data (TVOD) collection process 

The model was completed during 19{18. The first 

set of simulation experiments showed clearly that 

small scale non-randomness in dolphin school distribution, coupled with non-random searching by 

tuna vessels and computational problem with current methods for interpolating TVOD in areas not 

visited by tuna boats, can lead to extreme overestimates of dolphin abundance. The second set of 

simulations, planned for early 1990, will test the 

effect of small scale non-randomness, in the distribution of dolphin schools on estimates of abundance derived from research (vs. commercial) vessel line transect surveys. 

During 1989, the Southwest Fisheries Center staff 

has conducted a number of studies rdating to the 

estimation of dolphin mortality in the eastern tropical Pacific tuna fishery. The nearly 100 percent 

16 1989 MMPA Annual Report 
observer coverageof the U.S. tuna fleet fishing "on 

dolphins" in the eastern tropic,al Pacific during 

1987 made it possible to contlucl: a simulation 

study nf the effixt of less than lo(] percent coverage 

on cumulative: mortality estimates: for dolphins. 

Two studies were conducted, one based on sampling the 33-boat U.S. fleet at coverage of 25,33, 

50,75, and 96 percent to derive within-year estimates of cumulative mortality. The second study 

involved se1ec:ting 5, 10, or 20 boats from the total 

of 33, then sampling these "small fleets" at 25,50, 

artd 75 percenl observer coverage in order to ascertain the appropriate levels of obserlrer coverage on 

non-U.S. flee,ts (which tend to be !;mall) that seek 

to export tunma caught on dolphins to the United 

States. 

The first set of simulations showed that, for most 

dolphin groups, observer cover;age of 50 percent or 

greater achieved coefficients of variation less than 

20 percent b:y December and mortality estimates 

were relatively unbiased (less than five percent by 

December). The small fleet :simulations showed 

that for fleets with 10 or more vessels and mortality 

of greater than 2,500 dolphins per stock per year, 

cmfficients of variation less than 20 percent can be 

achieved at coverage of 50 peircerit or greater. The 

simulations dso showed that for small fleets, coverage of dolphin groups exhibiting heterogenous 

;and relatively infrequent kill/mp must be much 

higher to achieve the same coefficient of variation 

as for larger fleets. 

A third study relating to dolphin mortality in the 

eastern tropical Pacific fishery evaluated the effects on annual mortality estimates of changing the 

assumptions regarding the fate of' animals recorded 

as "seriously injured" or of "unknown status." 

Including all animals recorded as "seriously injured" would have increased the annual mortality 

estimates by an average of 4.2 percent for the en tire 

period 19715- 1989, but by onFy 1.8 percent for years 

since 1981. Including "status unknown" animals 

would have increased annual mortality rates by 2.7 

percent a year, on average, for 1 975- 1988, and 1.6 

percent since 198 1. The occurrence and magnitude 

of these additional numbers varied between species and ye;ars. 

Biological Assessment Program 

During 1989, the Southwest Fisheries Center continued to examine age-dependent life-history parameters of female spotted dolphins (Stenella 

attenuata). The initial phase of the project involved 

investigating northern offshore spotted dolphins 

collected fiom the eastern tropical Pacifiic Ocean. 

Using parameters such as (1) age at sexual maturation (ASM), (2) transition layer formation, and (3) 

calcium resorption, the Center hopes to identify 

biological changes in life history parameters that 

may have occurred as aresult of the fishe,~, aswell 

as those resulting from stock-specific differences. 

The project uses teeth collected from individual 

spotted ddphin taken incidentally during tunafishing since 1968. The investigations of transition 

layer fonnation and calcium resorptioin examine 

specific events recorded in the teeth. In baleen 

whales, the transition layer is characterized by a 

sudden decrease in the thickness of 1a:yers in ear 

plugs and is thought to occur at the time of sexual 

maturation. A similar pattern has beem noted in 

teeth of bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) 

and in the spotted dolphin. Calcium resorption, as 

recorded in teeth, is seen as a potential indicator of 

stress phenomena related to fishery activities. The 

degree a~f the response may be directly related to 

the severity of the stress. 

Most progress to date has been in lfie calcium 

resorption portion of the study. Preliminary investigation of the phenomena has focused on a sample 

of 50 northern offshore spotted dolphins and 50 

southern offshore spotted dolphins. The teetki were 

used to investigate reliability and repeatability of' 

the staging technique for recording observed calcium resorption phenomena and whether resop. 

tion differences distinguish northern and southern 

stocks. 

1989 MMPA Annual Report 
Once the sraging criteria were de veloped and shown 

to be reproducible, a comparison of northern and 

southern spotted dolphin stocks demonstrated that 

calcium resorption seems to occur at an earlier age 

in the norl.hern offshore stock. In the sample of 

southern offshore spotted dolphins, calcium resorption is not evident until1 the: animals are sexually mature and, even then, the resorption is less 

severe than in the northern of'fshore stock. Although these results are intncguing, the sample size 

used for the preliminary investigation has proven 

inadequate: for statistical analyses of stock comparison. A larger sample is being prepared to test 

whether observed differences are statistically significant. 

Additional life history studlies include investigations of the causes of variation in life history 

parameters due to sampling,, measurement, or estimation error rather than natmal variation. The 

emphasis h~as been on error in age estimation and in 

methods used to estimate the average age at attainment of sexual maturation. Calibration of growth 

layers in tleeth of captive and wild dolphins has 

provideddataon correct methodis of estimating age 

and likely errors when age is estamated incorrectly. 

Four methods used to estimate: ASM were compared in a simulation study and found to produce 

very different results, both between methods and at 

different sampling levels within some of the methods. Future work will examine how the various 

techniques compare under diffe~ent circumstances. 

Coastal Marine Mammal Program 

Harbor Porpoise (U.S. West Coast). During the 

first few months of 1989, approximately 30 harbor 

porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) are known to have 

died in Monterey Bay, based on counts of stranded 

animals and on direct observation of fishing boats. 

In response to the high level of incidental takes of 

harbor porpoise in Califonnia gill net fisheries, 

annual aerial surveys have: ken undertaken in 

collaborati(on with California Department of Fish 

and Gaine. The surveys are designed to monitor 

the abundance of porpoise along the coastline from 

Point Conception to the mouth of the Russian 

River in California. In previous years,, an estimated 

200-300 porpoise died annually in fishing nets in 

this area. Currently there is little monitoring of 

fishing nets due to lack of cooperation by fishermen, but porpoise mortality has proba1:)ly decreased 

due to fishing area closures. It is hoped th,a.t 

significant decreases in the population can be detected from the aerial monitoring progriiun. Analyses 

are currently being conducted to d'etermine the 

powerof statistical tests to detectpopu1;ation changes 

given the level of' variability found in the first four 

years ad monitoking. 

Results of the first comprehensive ship and aerial 

surveys for harbor porpoise on the U.S. west coast 

were published in two companion papers in the 

US. Fishery Bulbetin. Porpoise density estimates 

were based predominately on results of four ship 

surveys. Because porpoise visibility was highly 

dependent on weather and because of uncertainty 

in the fraction of' time that porpoise are near the 

surface, the two aerial surveys were mlost useful for 

corroborating ship survey results and for extrapolating density estimates made from 11he ship surveys to waters that were too shallow to be surveyed 

by ship. The: average porpoise density was estimated as 1.33 (s.e., 0.30) porpoise lorn2 along the 

18m isobath. The estimated population sizes are 

1,667 (s.e., 895) for central California (where most 

gill net mortality has been observed) aind 45,713 

(s.e., 7,865) for California, Oregon, and Washington combined. 

Past research has revealed significant variations in 

the polychlorinated pollutants in harlbor porpoise 

from different locations along the U.SI. west coast. 

Although sample sizes from central California 

were too small to be definitive, there was an indication that differences exist between areas withim 

California. Additional samples from California 

may help to define stock structure. Crutde estimates 

of exchange rates may be calculable from animals 

with pollutant levels typical of those found in 

another area. The planned coastal observer program may provide additional specimen material 

for these studies. 

1989 MMPA Annual Report 
~ Glenetic differences based on mitochondrial DNA 

offers an alternative approach to stock identification in harbor porpoise. To assess within and 

betweenpopullation genetic divers it:^, the Southwest 

Center is examining the displacement-loop, or Dlolop, region within the mitochondrial genome. 

The D-loop from 11 harbor porpoise (five fiom 

California, three from Washington State, and three 

from the Black Sea) were amplified using the 

polymerase chain reaction (PCR) Genetic comparisons were performed by restriction fragment 

length frequency analysis on the amplified product 

using both 4 and 6 base restriction enzymes. Few 

genetic differences have been found to date between 

the threepopulations. Of the 15 restriction enzymes 

tested, only one has yielded any differences between the California and Black. Sea populations of 

harbor porpoise. Future work will include the 

sequencing of a 300 base pair region within the Dloop to look for genetic differences on afiner scale. 

Harbor Seal (California). The harbor seal (Pbca 

vitulina) population on theU.S. west coast is thought 

to be increasing. Assessing the status of harbor 

seals is based on annual changes in the maximum 

number of animals hauled out using the technique 

that is referred to as dynamic response assessment. 

The west coast harbor seal population has been 

divided into three stocks: !he outer coasts of 

Washington and Oregon, and California. In California, harbor seals are abundlant along the entire 

coast. The 1989 mainland count was 20,190 seals 

and the count for eight Channel Islands was 4,279 

seals. Combining these counts produces a minimum 

population estimate for the California stock of 

24,469. This is thought to be a minimum population size because a substantial fraction of the 

population is not hauled out during the census. 

Work is curriently underway to determine the fraction of animals not counted (luring the census in 

order to obtain a more accurate population estimate. 

Eighteen harbor seals were radbtagged as part of 

a long-term monitoring prog,ram to estimate the 

fraction of time seals spendl ha.uled out and to 

determine thie patterns of movements of the seals. 

The tagging took place in early June 1989 and will 

be repeated in June 1990 on several beaches between Santa Barbara and Point Conception. Haulout data are needed to correct survey dita which 

account for seals in the water when estimating 

population abundance. Movement data are used to 

determine stock structure. Several radio receiving 

stations were set up along the coast to mionitor the 

hauling behavior of seals on nearby beaches. 

Results from this radio-tagging study have already 

provided useful information for the management 

of seal populations. Movements of harbor seals 

between the mainland and the Channel Islands had 

been observed previously, but were not hought to 

be common. Although the disturbance: of being 

captured and tagged may affect movement patterns, the observation of two seals moving from 

different mainland locations to San Miguel Island 

over such a short tirne is surprising. This may 

indicate tlhat the island and mainland populations 

are not independent. 

This stuey has also shown the feasibility of radiotagging seals during their molting season. In the 

past, radio tags have been attached to harbor seals 

by directly gluing the tag to the pelage. 'This could 

not be done during the molt because the pelage is 

constantly being lost.. This study has shown that a 

radio attached to a flipper tag can be used to 

monitor the presence of seals on a beach. Additional work is being planned using these types of 

tags. 

California Sea Lion (California). In 1988, the 

California sea lion (Zalophus calijornianus) 

population in California was estimated to be 87,000 

(67,000 to 107,000). On the basis of pup counts, 

the population of California sea lions in California 

has been growing at approximately 6.4 ]percent per 

year during the period 197 1-1986. Because of a 

lackof informationon movement patterns between 

the United States and Mexico, the California population has been assumed to be a separate stock for 

the purpose of assessing the status. It was concluded 

that the California sea lion population in California 

is near the lower limit of its optimum :sustainable 

1989 MMPA Annual Report 
1 population (OSP) level. This assertion was rnade 

on the basis of results of a dynamic response 

analysis. 

Northern ]Elephant Seal (California). Northern 

elephant seals (Mirounga angusrirostris) have 

grown from an estimated population size of several 

hundred individuals at the turn of the century to an 

estimated population of 50,800 seals in 1988 in 

California. The population size for northern elephant seals is estimated by counting pups and 

applying a multiplication factor to estimate the 

number of non-pups. New rookeries have been 

established on most of the largerislands in California 

and most irecently on the California mainland. 

Annual population growth has been estimated at 

8.75 percent from 1980 to 1986. Given a lack of 

information on northern elephant seals in Mexico, 

the Califorr~ia population has been assumed to be a 

separate stock for the purpose of assessing status. 

Given an apparent slowing of population growth, 

the population is thought to be near the lower 

bound of its OSP level. 

Atlantic Bottlenose Dolphin. Low-level monitoring studies of Atlantic bottlenose dolphins 

(Tursiops truncam) continued in two areas in 

southeastern U.S. waters. These. are being carried 

out under contracts with Dolphin Biology Research Associates (DBRA:) and Mote Marine 

Laboratory. These contracts were scheduled for 

three years, beginning September 1987, and have 

been extended an additional two years. 

These studies are designed to detect major changes 

in the bott1,enose dolphin populations within a 

limited geographic area. DBRA is using srnallboat surveys and photo-identification to monitor 

the bottlenose population in the Sarasota-Tampa 

Bay area in Florida. During the 11989 field season, 

researchers completed a total of 45 boat-days of 

effort on the low-level monitoring studies. They 

observed 324 schools of bottlenose dolphins (about 

1,900 animals) and collected alpproximately 10,000 

photographs for photo-identifica,tion analysis. 

Mote Marine Laboratory is conducting aerial surveys on a quarterly schedule to provide information on the status of the population cuf bottlenose 

dolphins in the Indian-Banana Rivers area of 

Florida., The Southeast Center is responsible for 

the analysis of the aerial survey data. 

As part of their contract, DBRA providles an annual 

summary of survey results. In its most recent 

report, it noted that there did not appear to be any 

change in abundance of bottlenose dollphins in the 

study areas between 1988 and 1989 based on 

sighting per unit effort. However, abundance 

estimates will be derived from mark-recapture 

analysis; from photographs. The surveys showed 

an apparent 2 1 percent increase in abur ldance of all 

age classes of calves, accompanied by a 35 percent 

decline in the number of young-of-year between 

1988 and 1989 (young-of-year are not included in 

the calf classes). The researchers noted that the 

increase in calves and the decrease in young-ofyear may be due to unusually high calf recruitment 

during 1988. The determination of community 

structure and home ranges will be made from 

photo-identification analyses. 

Depleted Marine Mammals 

Hawaiian Monk Seal. Hawaiian monk seal 

(Monachus schauinslandi.) population monitoring, including tagging of weaned pups, was conducted in 1989 at four of the five major breeding 

sites in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. 

Lisianski Island was not visited in 1989. 

The number of births at Kure Atoll continued to 

rise as more female graduates of the Head Stw 

project (temporary captive maintenance of female 

pups to enhance survival) were recruited into the 

breeding population. Eleven pups were born in 

1989, adramatic change from the one birth in 1986. 

Five 1989 female pups were collected at weaning 

for maintenance in the Head Start enclosure and 

three rehabilitated yearling females (collected at 

1989' WA Annual Reporl 
French Frigate Shoals) were released at Kure Atoll. 

Three unclerdeveloped female pups were collected 

at French Frigate Shoals for rehabilitation and 

release in 1990. 

Four captive adult male seals held in California 

were returned to Hawaii for experimental work 

related to "mobbing" behavior (adlult male attacks 

on female seah). There were 21 known mortalities 

firom mobbings at Laysan Islarrd in 1988 and 1989. 

Of 16 newly recruited females at Laysan in this 

two-year period, five were attacked and three of 

these died. 

Field personr~el sampled and re:moved beach debris 

capable of entangling seals at all1 islands visited. 

Data indicate the amount of tlebiis is increasing, 

ailong with the number of entanglements observed 

and the numlber of deaths. 

In December 1989, the Hawaiian monk seal research 

program was reviewed by the Marine Mammal 

Commission and the Hawaiian Monk Seal Recovery 

Team. It was agreed that (1) the program was being 

funded at an insufficient level tt:, accomplish all 

critical reseaxch activities; (2) research directed at 

imderstandi~ig and resolving the mobbing problem 

warranted immediate priority attention; (3) recovery 

activities (Head Start and reintroduction of rehalbilitated ferrdes) at the west end of the archipelago 

should be continued; and (4) population monitoring should be conducted annually at all five major 

breeding 1oc:ations. The Conlmission and the Recovery Team recornrnendeci dt:velopment of a 

minimum three-year work plan outlining a research and recovery activity schedule and associated costs. This was scheduled For completion in 

early 1990. 

Bowhead Whales. Low-altitude aerial photographs were taken of bowhead whales (Balaena 

mysticetus) from April 15 to June 4, 1989, as they 

migrated into the Chukchi arid Beaufort Seas near 

Barrow, AIK. The purpose of' this study is to 

measure lengths and identify individual whales to 

help determine calf production, calving intervals, 

and juvenile survival, and to) estimate abundance. 

Approximately 10,000 photographs have ken taken 

since 198.5 for use in measuring, ~alibr~ating, and 

identifying individual whales, and to carry out 

systematic matches of photographs. 

Other workers analyzed the photogrammetric database and estimated that approximately 340 percent 

of the bowhead population is sexually mature (> 13 

m). A comparison of re-identified whales between 

years suggests that yearly growth for adult whales 

may be only 0.25-0.313 m per year. This means that 

a 13 m animal might be greater than 10 years of age. 

Further analysis of estimating historical population size fiom current population size suggests that 

age at sexual maturity is nine years old or greater. 

The initial population size (prior to 1843) is estimated to be 14,000-27,000 and is not sensitive to 

current population size estimates. The level of 

reduction of the current population compared to its 

initial size ranges fiom 24 to 66 percent (mean = 

40.9 percent, 95 percent CI = 39.9-42.0 percent) 

with 94 of the 96 simulation runs (98 percent) 

falling below the presumed maximum net productivity level of 60 percent of the 1848 population 

size. 

Two baleen plates (30 test samples from each) 

were analyzed for their 14C and /1JC carbon 

isotopic ratios, an experimental method to age 

bowhead whales. Intervals of 14C appeared in 

mature animals as if'/l3C was being laid down in 

an approximately cannual basis. However, there is 

considerable scatter in the data, especially for mimals less than 9 11-1 in length, suggesting that this 

method of ageing is uncertain. 

Steller Sea Lion. The National Marine Mammal 

Laboratory (NMML,) conducted a range-wide survey of S teller sea lions (Eumetopim jubtztus) in June 

and July 1989. A total of 24,953 adult and juvenile 

sea lions were counted from the western Gulf of 

Alaska to the western Aleutian Islands,. In 1985, a 

count of 67,617 seal lions was made for the same 

area; thus, the population declined 63 percent (more 

than 42,000 animals) in four years. Pup production 

declined 66 percent at the five major :rookeries in 

the study area (from 10,593 in 1985--1!l>86 to 3,625 

1989 MMPA Annual Report 
I in 1989). The combined adult and juvenile population in Alaska (except southeast Alaska) has 

declined about 77 percent since: 1960, and, in the 

eastern Aleutian Islands, levels have fallen 94 

percent. The greatest rate of' change in the Gulf of 

Alaska and western Aleutian Islands has occurred 

since 1985, whereas in the eastern Aleutian Islands 

the decline was greatest in the 1970s. 

Northern Fur Seal. Field situdies on northern fur 

seals (Callorhinus ursinus) in 1989 consisted of 

monitoring pup production andcolunting adult males 

on the Pribillof Islands (St. Pad and St. George) and 

Bogoslof Island, AK, and San Miguel Island, CA. 

On St. Paul Island, scientists also documented the 

rate of debris entanglement of juvenile seals and 

changes in rookery space utilization, and radiotagged pups to determine their timing and rnigration through the eastern Aleutian Islands after the 

breeding season. A comparison of several population parameters between the 1950s and 1980s 

 demonstrate:^ that the Pribilof Islands population of 

fur seals has declined about 60 percent. For example, on St. Paul Island, both tht: amount of space 

used by fur ,seals on rookeries and pup production 

(declined 62 percent, and the number of territorial 

(harem) males counted declined by 59 percent. 

Between 1976 and 1981, pup production on St. 

Paul Island declined by 40 percent, but from 198 1 

ito 1989 no significant trend is apparent. Pup 

production on St. George Island continues to decline 

about six percent per year. The entanglement rate 

of juvenide fur seals in 1989 was about 0.3 percent 

(the same as in 1988), a 25 percent decrease from 

the perio~d 1976-1986. Ln 0clobe:r and November 

1989,80 pups and 10 mother-pup pairs were fitted 

with rad~o transmitters to monitor their migration 

out of the Bering Sea. Six radio receivers were 

stationed in the eastern Aleutiian Islands to record 

and store the radio receptions. 14 study of tooth 

weights and body lengths of juvenile fur seals 

showed ,a density dependent re1,ltionship during 

population declines. Other wolrk showed that 

aquatic copulations occur in fur seals, something 

surmised bul not previously documented. Also, 

NMML staff found that non-breeding fur seals do 

not avoidl prolonged airborne construction sounds 

(peak of 85 dB at source) or ground vibrations from 

heavy equipment within 100 m. 

Marine Mammal Sighting Surveys 

Systematic sighting surveys for marine mammals, 

seabirds, and sea turtles have been conducted for 

several years aboard Northeast Fisheries Center 

(NEFC) vessels in conjunction with fishery resource surveys. 'fie area covered is from Nova 

Scotia to Cape Hatteras, seaward to roughly the 

100-fathom depth contour. The siglhting effort 

continued in 1989, but at a reduced 1eve:l because of 

fewer fishery resource surveys and loss of the R/W 

Albatross from the NEFC fleet. Addirional effort 

was spent in 1989 to analyze the data that have been 

collecteti, and sewral manuscripts are anticipatedl 

in 1990. 

Marine Mammal Diet 

The need to understand the diet of miuine mammals can be met in part by utilizing biological 

samples from animals killed incidental to fishing 

operations. Increased observer coverage of fishing 

trips has allowed access to samples, and observations of stomach contents are being made at sea as 

well as in the laboratory. Initial work in 1989 

focused on organizing this data collectioln program, 

cataloging existing samples, and summarizing 

existing information for use in developing a 

mathematical model of trophic relationships of 

pelagic species. 

North Atlantic Right Whale Program 

Since 1986, the endangered North Atlantic right 

whale population has been the subject of an intensive, coordinated, multi-institution study which 

focuseson detecting changes and causes of changes 

in the population size. 

The overall coordination of this study has facilitated the organization of individual identification 

I 

1989 IWPA Annual Report 
l and sighting survey data that had been collected by 

numerous groups over the past dlecade, and the 

integration of' that data into comprehensive data 

bases. In 1990, the two data bases that have been 

created will be transferred into ;a single data base to 

facilitate analyses which utilize both the sightings 

and the individual identification data simultaneously. 

Sighting Data and Habitat Use. This project of 

th~e North Atlantic Right Whale Prcgrammaintains 

a comprehensive database of all sighting data from 

cooperating institutions, conducts imalysis of these 

data relative to habitat usage,, conducts sighting 

surveys, and conducts oceanographic studies of 

hiabitat requirements. In 1989, the organization 

and entry of the historical sighting data into cornputer data bases was completed, including all data 

through 1988. Sighting surveys were conducted in 

the Great. South Channel, partly in cooperation 

with a separately funded study of the oceanograp hy of that region. 

Habitat Requirements. The Swns of this project 

is to measure the prey concenbrations in Cape Cod 

Bay that are exploited by right whales. The goal is 

to develop a niodel of habitat requirements of these 

animals. Additionally, the studies provide an opportunity to idlentify individual animals andmonitor 

their use of the bay. 

In 1989, {efforts were made to improve fine-scale 

monitoring of plankton densities and patchiness. 

The vertical depth of surface patches along slicks 

or frontal areas, which are used by right whales 

feeding on the surface, appears tcj be less than 20 

cm. The horizontal width of thesle patches are on 

the order of meters to tens of meters. A model of 

feeding patterns based on detailed observations of 

the movemerlt of individual whales feeding at the 

surface is under development. 

Individual Identification. As part of this project, 

program rese:wchers maintain an archive of individual identijication data and photographs from all 

cooperating institutions, establish individual identities using a reference catalog of lknown individu1989 MMPA Annual Report 

als, and collect additional individual sighting data, 

primarily from the Bay of Fundy and the southeastem United States. 

The archiving and analysis of all available historical photographs through 1988 has been completed, 

along with a data base of these data, keyed to the 

sighting survey data base maintained by the University of Rhde Island. 

Population Dynamics. The population dynamics 

project was initiated in 1989 to assist the overall 

research effort by utilizing the data being collected 

to develop a comprehensive mathematical model 

of the dynamics of the North Atlantic right whale 

population. Preliminary modeling studies conducted as part of the development of the Right 

Whale Recovery Plan suggest that such models 

could help interpret data collected to date. These 

studies also suggest areas where additional data 

need to be collected. 

Currently, geographical information system software is being used to improve interpretation of 

existing data. This will be expanded to utilize the 

comprehensive linked databases and to examine 

alternate population models, especially those that 

would describe spatial distributions. 

Large Cetacean Distribution and 

Habitat Usage 

The habitat requirements of humpback and fin 

whales that seasonally use areas around Cape Cod 

are not well known. Such high-use habitats may be 

extremely important to some populations of large 

cetaceans, necessitating the identification of factors that attract and maintain seasonally hjgh concentrations in order to understand the dynamics of 

such populations. 

Studies conducted during 1989 included sighting 

surveys, photo-identification, oceanographic Sampling for physical and biological water column 

characteristics, and behavioral observations. Data 

collected will Ibe compared to similar data col- 
lected since 1978 to determine longer term changes. 

Sighting surveys conducted over a larger area in 

1989 resulted in identification of some animals that 

had not been seen near Cape Ctd in recent years, 

suggesting ihat the size of the study area needs to be 

reconsidered. 

Humpback Whale Individual Identification 

The archiving and identification of individual 

humpback whales from ph~otographs collected 

throughout the northeastern LJnited States has been 

centralized at the College of the A.tlantic for several 

years. Individual scientists contribute to this 

archive, and the photographs that are submitted are 

compared to the catalog of known individuals for 

identification. The resulting data are useful for 

determining information such as reproductive rates 

,and for estirnating total population size. 

Since 1988, expansion to areas outside the Gulf of 

Maine has resulted in a substa;ntial improvement in 

coverage and better tracking of individual animals 

using other ranges. The use of elcctronic approaches to handling the photographic archive and 

catalog has been explored jointly with staff of the 

National Marine Mammal Laboratory in Seattle. 

Sighting Survey Methods 

The use of shipboard sighting surveys to determine 

the abundance of cetaceans has become routine, 

but many of the underlying assumptions of this, 

approach have not been adequately tested. The 

seasonal high density of harbor porpoise in the Bay 

of Fundy provides a setting that allows testing of 

some of the underlying assumptions. 

As a result of initial field studies in 198'7 and 1988, 

two sighting teams of observers at different heights 

were placed aboard the same vessel. Preliminary 

results using this approach suggest that while the 

usual line transecl analysis methods reveal predictable differences between two sighting teams, 

more detailed comparison shows that fewer animals were sighted by both teams than might be 

expected. 

1989 MMPA Ar~~nual Report 
SUBSlISTENCE TAKE OF MARINE MAMMALS 

Bowhead Whales in the! Beaufort and 

Chukchi Selas 

Although bowhead whales are listed as an endangered species, both the Marine Mammal Protec tion 

Act and the Endangered specie:^ Act provide for a 

subsistence take of endangered or depleted species 

by Alaska natives. Catch limits; for the subsistence 

take of bowhead whales and other endangered 

cetaceans are: set by the International Whaling 

Commission (IWC). Regulations for management 

of the harvest are implemented under the Whaling 

Convention Act of 1949. 

The bowhead quota set for 1989 was 44 strikes or 

41 whales landed, whichever comes first (Table 5 

on page 26). During the hunt, 18 animals were 

landed and eight were struck and lost. At the 41st 

WC meeting it was agreed that, for each of the 

years 1989, 1.990, and 1991, the total number of 

whales struck should not exceed 44 and the total 

number of whales landed shauld not exceed 41, 

except that up to three strikes not used in 1988, 

1989, or 1990 could be reallocated to the following 

year. 

NMFS is the federal agency with primary responsibility for bowhead whales, but thie State of Alaska 

and several other agencies, including the Alaska 

Eiskimo Whaling Commission, the North Slope 

Borough, and the Minerals Management Service, 

are also involved. Eaic h year, staff from the NMFS 

Alaska Region participate in monitoring the fall 

bowhead migration as the animals pass through the 

Beaufort Sea. Studies of population size and recruitment, seasonal distribution and migation, and 

behavior relative to the availability of food or 

human disturbance are carried out by NIMFS and 

the North Slope Borough, a group representing 

Alaska natives. 

Northern Fur Seals on the Pribilof Islands 

In 1986, NMFS issued final regulations that govern 

the subsistence harvesting of fur seals by residents 

of the Pribilof Islands in Alaska. These regulations 

establish dates for an annual harvest and limit the 

take of animals by sex in order to protect the seal 

herd. Each year, estimated harvest levels are set to 

ensure that subsistence. needs of Pribilof Islands 

residents are met. In 1988, the harvest was carried 

out by volunteers oirganized by the Traditional 

Aleut Council on each island. The take totaled 

1,145 fur seals, mostly two- and three-year-olds, 

on St. Paul Island and 1 13 fur seals on !St. George 

Island. During the 1989 harvest, 1,340 seals were 

taken on St. Paul Islland and 181 on St. George 

Island. No female seals were taken on either island. 

11989 MMPA Annual Report 
Table 5. Annual Quotas and Catch of Bowhead Whales, 1978-1989 

Year Landed .- Strikes Landed Lost - Strikes 

Quotas were first set for th~:~ pqpulation in 1978. Since 1982, a landed whale counts against the strike 

quota Hunting is to cease when tl~e quota of total strikes, including landed whales, is reached. 

IWC quotas dictated that the combined take during 1981,1982 and 1983 could not exceed 45 whales 

landed or 65 struck. 

' A two-year quota for 1984- 1985, not to exceed 43 strikes, was put into effect at the July 1983 IWC 

meeting. A domestic limit of 27 s~rikes was set for 1984 consistent with the IWC decision Of these, 

25 strikes were used in 1984, Jloviig a possible total of 18 strikes in 1985. 

' The strike limit for 1986, set at the 1985 IWC meeting, was 26; however, those strike.s not used in 

1985 could be added to the 1986 limit so long as the total number of strikes did not exceed 32. Because 

the total number of whales that could be struck in 1985 was raised from 18 to 26 at the IWC 1985 

meeting, and because only 17 whales were struck in 1985, the full 32 strikes were available in 1986. 

1989 MMPA A,nnual Report 
VI. PERMIT PROGRAMS 

Scientific Research, Public Display, and 

Enhancement Permits 

Under the MMPA, NMFS issuespermits for taking 

or. importing marine mammals for public display, 

scientific research, or enhancing the survival or 

recovery of a, species or stock.. NMFS reviews 

applications 2nd decides whether to issue the requested permjlts, monitoring the: animals as long as 

they are main1 ained under the authority of a permit. 

Currently, NIVlFS is monitoring 400 permits for 

scientific rese:arch and public display. 

D~uring the period from April 1, 1988, through 

December 3 1,1989, NMFS con~sidered 76 applications for pemlits. Of these, 32 pennits were issued 

for scientific research and nine for public display. 

Three permits were denied, 20 applications were 

returned or withdrawn, and 12 applications were 

pending final action at the end of the period. 

MMFS also processes requests for permit modifications or authorizations of activities under permits. During this period, 100 pernlit modification1 

authorization requests were processed. See Tables 

10 through 15 in the Appendix for an overview of 

major permit-related actions during the period from 

April 1, 19813, through December 3 1, 1989. 

Permit Program Review. 1111 the years since the 

MMPA was enacted, the pennit program has become increasingly complex and controversial. 

~4mendments to the MMPA have established additional permj t requirements, but program regulations, policies, and administrative: procedures have 

not kept pace with these changes. As a result, in 

1988, NMFS initiated the first colmprehensive examination of'the permit program s,ince permit regulations were issued in 1974. This review has been 

conducted in consultation with the scientific community, the public display industry, environmental 

groups, and other interested parties. Regulatory 

and policy changes resulting liorn this review will 

make the program more efficient, more consistent 

with applicable law and regulations, &and more 

responsive to the conc:erns of applicants and other 

interested parties, as .well as the needs of marine 

mammals, The objectives of this permit: program 

review are to 

streamline and speed up the permit process; 

ensure consistenc:y in permit proceclures; 

develop a policy fiarnework governing permit 

decisions; and 

ensure compliance with the MMPA, the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and thn: National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 

A number of actions have been undertakc.:n as a part 

of this review. For instance, a discussion paper 

describing the permit program and surmarizing 

issues relevant to the review was distributed to 

interested parties, and a notice was published in the 

Federal Register on March 30, 1989, requesting 

public comment. Connments were received through 

September 1989. 

Pursuant to the 1988 amendments, an interim policy 

was published in the Federal Register cm May 22, 

1989, describing the manner in which WS will 

implement the requirement that an applicant for a 

public display permit offer a program for education 

or conservation purposes, providing guidance to 

applicants, and soliciting public comment. 

In July 1989, a status report on the review was 

presented to representatives of the aquarium community at a Marine Mammal Interest Group meeting 

in Baltimore. During August 1989, NMFS marine 

mammal scientists met with permit program staff 

to discuss concerns with research permit applicants. 

The Service also worked with the U.S. Navy, the 

International Wildlife Coalition, the Florida Department of Nratural Resources, the Brookfield 

Zoo, and the California Marine Mammal Center to 

co-sponsor a series of working sessions on aspects 

1989 MMPA .Annual Report 
of the pernnit program review. Working sessions 

wereheld at various locations throughout the United 

States. The topics of these working sessions included the definition of publiic display , scientific 

research permits for marine mammals, and care 

and maintenance of rnarine mammals in captivity. 

An average of 70 persons attended each working 

session. P,articipants included representatives of 

the public clisplay industry, the :scientific research 

community, the offshore oil ;wid gas industry, Federal and State agencies, animal welfare groups, 

environmental and conservation organizations, the 

professional zoo/aquarium/museum education 

community, marine ~nammall professionals ( marine mammal veterinarians, trainers, collectors, 

etc.), and the general public. 

A presentation on the pemlit program review, 

particularly as it may affect scientific research 

permits, was given to approxim;itely 300 persons 

from scienti!fic research and put~lic display communities during a special session of the Biennial 

Conference of the Society of Marine Mammalogy 

in Pacific Grove, CA, on December 9, 1989. 

'Two technical meetings were scheduled to be held 

iin Washington, D.C., and Seattle, WA, during 

January 1990 on administrative iind legal aspects 

of the role of NEPA in the conduct of the permit 

program. 

IWFS will use the information from these working sessions and extensive public comments to 

develop proposed revised pe:rmit regultations, 

improved administrative procedures, and revised 

policy guidance. 

Swim-With-The-Dolphin-Programs. In 1988, 

PJMFS began an environmental review of the use 

od marine mammals in swim-with-the-dolphin 

(SWTD) programs. Four public display facilities 

were authorized to use Atlantic bottlenose dolphiins 

in SWTD programs on an experimental basis until 

December 3 1, 1989. These programs allow a 

member of the public to entea the water with a 

captive dolph~in for recreational swimming, snorkeling or scuba diving activities. NMFS must 

decide whether the use of marine mam.mals in these 

or additional programs should be allowed, whether 

additional taking for use in such programs should 

be authorized, and, if authorized, what permit conditions may be appropriate. 

On May 10, 1989, NMFS published a Notice of 

Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement on SWTD programs and requested public; 

comments on the scope of the issues that should be 

addressed in a Dridt Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). The DEE, published November 1, 

1989, consideredfnuralternatives: (a) allow SWTD 

program authority to expire on December 3 1,19 89 ; 

(b) continue existing SWTD programs on an experimental basis; (c) authorize SWTI> programs 

after December 3 1, with new condititrns; and (d) 

authorize SWTD programs after De~cember 31, 

with existing special conditions. In addition, the 

DEIS discussed cumulative effects of possible 

increased demand fior dolphins for aquaria, zoos, 

amusement parks, and hotellresort facilities, and 

health and safety issues, including possible disease 

transmission and injury. 

In November and December 1989, four public 

hearings were held on the DEIS: two in Florida, 

one in Hawaii, and one in Washington, D.C. A 

Final Environmental Impact Statement and a decision on these permits was expected in early 1990. 

Bottlenose Dolphin Quotas. During 1989, a 

number of questions arose regarding the use of a 

quota system developed during the 1970s to regulate the capture of tx)ttlenose dolphins in the Gulf 

of Mexico. New quota recommendations were 

developed by the Southeast Fisheries Science Center and the Southeast Regional Office in March 

1989. In April 1989, a public hearing was held on 

an application for a public display permit by a zoo 

in The Netherlands to capture four bottlenose dolphins for shipment to The Netherlands;. Several 

environmental groups opposed the application because of concerns over the status of lbottlenose 

dolphins and conditions at the zoo. Some groups 

argued that NMFS w,as not considering the possibility that other factors, including human-induced 

1989 h/lMPA Annual Report 
mortalities, were adversely affecting these populati ons. The Marine Mammal Cormnission recommended a review of the assumptions underlying 

the current dolphin quotas and the Southeast Fisheries Science Center began a series of reviews of 

the population status and vital rates for bottlenose 

dolphin management areas from Texas to Florida. 

Based on these reviews, interim quotas were expected to be published in early 1990. An environmental review of. the entire quota system and its 

effects on wild bottlenose populations is expected 

to continue through 1990. 

Whale Watching and Feeding 14nimals in the 

7WiId. In November 1988, NMFS and the Center 

for Marine Conservation sponsored a workshop in 

Monterey, CA, to review and evaluate whale 

watching programs and managemlent needs. The 

re:comrnendations of the Workshop focus on actions 

that can be taken by the whale watching industry, 

researchers, the conservation community, and the 

Federal Gove:rnment to protect marine mammals 

fi-om potentially harmful activities associated with 

whale watching. The specific: workshop recommendations to NMFS are as fcrllol~s: 

('1) Each NMFS region should issue regulations on 

whale watching. The primary focus of new regulations should be minimum approach distances 

based on regional considerations. The regulations 

!ilhould: 1) include restrictions on related activities 

including thrill craft and swimling and diving 

with whales; 2) address behavior such as how to 

operate a vessel if it is approached by a whale; 3) 

provide special restrictions f;or particular areas 

such as feeding or calving grounds, or special 

:situations such as whale watching on mating pairs 

csa cowlcalf pairs; and 4) prohibit activities that 

:iinvolved feetiing wild populations of cetaceans. 

1(2) While reviewing its system for issuing public 

 display and research permits, MFS should examine the use of scientific pern~lits for commercial 

whale watching including photography. Specifically, NMFS should investigate whether scientific 

research that requires a permit is being conducted 

concurrently with commercial wlhsde watching trips 

and whether the privileges of a permit (which 

usually allow a closer approach to wh~ales than 

whale watching guide:lines or regulations) are being abused to benefit the permit holder mlonetarily. 

NMFS should clarify under what circun~stances it 

is acceptable to combine research with commercial 

activities. 

(3) By January 1, 1990, each NMFS region shall 

have met with affected constituencies and drafted 

proposed regulations on whale watching for that 

region. 

NMFS is implementing the recommentiations in 

the workshop repm Regulations heve been proposed that would prohibit feeding marine mammals 

in the wild, and regulations are being drafted that 

would set limits on approaching marine ~nammals. 

Dolphin Feeding. In February 1989, WMFS received a request for a public display permit to feed 

dolphins from a tour boat. Subsequently, the 

Southeast Regional Olffice prepared areport, completed in October 1989, which detailed the extent 

of activities to feed rnarine mammals in the wild 

and the effects these activities have on the animals. 

It stated that there were eleven known commercial 

cruises in the Southeast Region that offiered "feed 

the dolphin" activities and that feeding of pinnipeds took place in California and Oregon. According to the report, it is the opinion of scientists 

in the regional office and other marine mammalogists that feeding marine mammals in the wild 

could alter their normal behavior and place the 

animals at a higher risk to injury or death. The 

report recommended against issuing public display 

permits for these types of activities. 

Incidental/Uninte~~tional Take 

Authorizations 

Section 101 (a)(5) of the MMPA allows an incidental, but not intentional, take of marine mammals 

(other than commercial fishing) if NMFS makes a 

finding that the impact on tlhe speci~es will be 

"negligible" and if rhere is not an "unrnitigable 

I 989 MMPA Annual Report 
adverse impact" on the availability of the species 

for subsistence uses. Amendments to the MMPA in 

1986 expanded section 10 l(a)(5) to include depleted species. 

The final rule implementing uhe 1986 amendments 

was published September 29,1989. Before NMFS 

can issue an authorization under this section of the 

MMPA, it must make the findings noted above and 

issue regullations that include requirements for 

monitoring the effects of the activity on marine 

mammals. 

NMFS published a proposed rule that would allow 

a take by harassment of six species of marine 

mammals incidental to oil and gas exploration in 

Alaska (October 3, 1989). A group of oil companies petitioned NMFS for this authorization, and 

NMFS found that the taking will have a negligible 

impact on the species and will not have an 

unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of 

species for subsistence uses. 

The proposedrule allows the harassment of beluga 

whales, bowhead whales, gray whales, bearded 

seals, ringed seals, and spotted seals during exploration for oil and gas in the Chukchi and Beaufort 

Seas for a five year period. Any taking that results 

in more than harassment would be a violation of the 

MMPA. The regulations do not permit the actual 

activities associated with exploratiorl, but rather 

allow incidental harassment during exploration. 

The proposed rule includes requirements for monitoring and reporting, and cooperatiing with the 

native subsistence communities. 

In the past, NMFS has issued authoriziitions under 

section 101 (a)(5) for the harassment of ringed seals 

incidental to seismic work on the ice in Alaska and 

for the harassment of marine mammals incidental 

to the launching of the space shuttle from 

Vandenberg Air Force Base in Califiornia. The 

authorization for ringed seals is in effect through 

199 1. Although the Air Force cancel1e:d 1 he space 

shuttle prograrn at Vandenberg, and the authorization was not used, it has requested a sinnilar authorization for a take of marine mammals incidental to 

the launching of Tit,an rockets from Vandenberg. 

1989 MMPA Annual Report 
VII. COMMERCIAL FI[S:HERY/MARINE MAMMAL 

INTERACTIONS 

Tuna-Do~lphin Interactions 

In 1988 ;and 1989, regulations required that 

observers be placed on 33 percent of all non-U.S. 

tuna fishing vessels operating in the eastem tropical 

Pacific Ocean (ETP). In December 19819, NMFS 

published a proposed rule that would continue 33 

percent observer coverage for fleets of 10 sr more 

vessels during 1990. For fleets comprising five to 

nine vesselis, observer coverage would be increased 

to 50 percent. This level of coverage will allow 

reliable estimates of the average dolphin mortality 

rate for each participal.ing harvesting nation. 

Observer c:overage of U.S. tuna boats fishing in the 

eastern tropical Pacific continued at the 1OO percent 

level throughout 1989. This level of coverage will 

be continued at least through 1991. Observers 

made 59 trips in 1988, of which 31 we.re NMFS 

trips and ;!8 were Inter-American Tropical Tuna 

Commission (IATTC) trips. In 1989 observers 

made 121 trips (72 NMFS trips and 49 IATTC 

trips). Th~e estimated 1989 mortality of 12,643 

dolphins resulting from theU.S. purse-seine fishery 

in the eastern tropical Pacific remained below the 

quota of 210,500 anima.1~ (Table 6). 

Table 6. Incidental Morttzlity of Small Cetaceans during 

ETP Yellow,fi Tuna Purse-Seine Operations 

Year #U.S;. U.S. #Nan-U.S. Non-U3, Total 

Vessels Kill Vcssels Kill Kill .-- 

i985 36 19,205 105 36,032 55,297 

1986 34 20.692 101 103,095 124,597 

1987 34 13,992 126 78,497 92,489 

1988 37 19,712 95 65,165 84,88 1 

1989 29 12,643 93 84,336 96,979 

NMFS commitment to reduce the incidental take 

of cetaceans in the eastern tropical Pacific tuna 

purse-seine fishery extended beyond 100 percent 

observer coverage of the W.S. tuna fleet and 

participation in the IAnC tuna/dolphin research 

program. The Service bffered workshops to train 

vessel operators in the use of the best marinc.: 

mammal safety techniques and to provide them 

with up-to-date information on gear design. NMFS 

observers inspected nets and gear to ensure that 

required dolphin safety equipment was being used 

and maintained in good working order. Table '7 

summarizes each activity for the reporting period. 

Countries that wanted to export tuna products to 

the U.S. are required to conform to the same kill per 

ton regulations imposed on the U.S. fleet. Findings 

of conformance were made for Ecuador, Panama, 

Vanuatu, Venezuela and Mexico for 1988, each of 

which submitted information that demonstrated 

that their regulatory programs and the marine mammal mortality rates of their tuna1 purse seine vessels 

were in conformance with U.S. regulations. 

Table 7. Summary of Domestic Activities 

Year 

Activity 1988 I989 I 

Operator Workshops 6 6 

Net and Gear Inspections 

At sea 3 3 7 1 

In port 3 1 

Certificates Issued 

Operator 77 65 

Vessel 37 28 

1989 MMPA Annual Report 
California Sea LionlSteellhead Conflict 

The sea liodsteelhead salmon conflict in the Lake 

Washington ship channel, known as the "Herschel 

Problem," continues to be a well-publicized marine mammal issue. Nunlerous non-lethal control 

methods have been attempted under a cooperative 

program involving NMFS, the Washington Department of Wildlife, the Amy Corps of Engineers, and the Muckleshoot and Suquamish Indian 

Tribes. 

A number of methods have been attempted to 

discourage predation of sea lions on the winter 

steelhead run, including harassment using vessels, 

underwater firecrackers, iind taste aversion conditioning. In spite of these: efforts, predation rates 

have continued to increase. During the 1988/1989 

run, 65 percent of returning siteelhead were consumed by sea lions. 

During the 1987/1988 winter steelhead run, an 

experimental barrier net was deployed to provide a 

area free from predation for returning steelhead 

near the entrance to the fishway. Information was 

collected during the season on predation rates, 

predation location, sea lion behavior, fish behavior 

at the barrier, and fish passage. Resulting data 

analysis indicated that the expcximental barrier had 

not significantly reduced sea lion predation on 

steelhead, but had shifted the principal predation 

area downstream. 

During the 1988/1989 winter steelhead run, a sea 

lion capture/relocation program was undertaken. 

A floating trap consisting of ix welded mesh cage 

secured to a moored float previously used as a sea 

lion haul-out was deployed in Shilshole Bay, adjacent to the ship cana11lock.s area. Thirty-nine sea 

lions were captured using the floating trap. After 

capture, the sea lions were tagged, marked, affixed 

with radio transmitters, and transported to the outer 

coast of southern Washing ton fior release. During 

the initial phase of the pro,gam, two animals died 

while recovering from anesthesia used during the 

tagging and examination process. The use of 

anesthetics was abandoned after these mortalities, 

and no more animals died. Of the 37 sea lions 

released on the outer coast 260 miles away, 29 

returned to Puget Sound in an average of 10 to 15 

days. Even though 39 animals were removed 

during the season, the few remaining animals which 

could not be captured kept predation levels high. 

The results of the effort showed that, in order to 

protect the peak of the fish run from predation, 

virtually all "chronic offender" sea lions would 

have to be removed and taken to a release point 

significantly farther away. 

Other Marine MammalIFishery Interactions 

Fishery conflicts with pinnipeds have been reported from all the northwest fisheries. There are 

increasing problems in all salmonid fisheries resulting in losses of catch and gear, as well as fishing 

time. Examples include: gillnet fisheries in the 

lower Columbia River, which are experiencing 

increased predation by harbor seals; salmon gillnet 

fisheries in &get Sound where predation by harbor 

seals and sea lions is increasing and reported as 

particularly heavy in Northern Puget Sound; and 

with Puget Sound steelhead gillnet fisheries where 

sea lion conflicts have increased dramatically. 

Marine MammallResource Conflicts 

Other marine resources are also being affected by 

the growing pinniped popullations. In I'uget Sound, 

harbor seal feces has been implicated as a major 

contributing factor in the closure of a number of 

shellfish beds historically used for comrr~ercial and 

recreational harvests. At one clam bed located on 

the Dosewallips River delta, bacterial contarnination from a harbor seal haul-out there has become 

so acute that the area was ordered closed to shellfish collection by the health department. A study is 

underway to determine if t.he harbor seals can be 

encouraged to use alternative manmade haul-out 

habitat a short distance away in order to allow the 

bacterial contamination to dissipate and restore the 

clam bed to harvestable condition. 

1989 MMPA Annual Report 
1 Commercial Fishery Moniit~oring 

Analysis of existing data on th,e incidental take of 

harbor porpoise and harbor seals in gillnets fished 

in the Gulf of Maine suggested that the rate of 

capture exceeds 1 per 20 days f shing, and further 

that the incidental takes may be significant for the 

harbor porpoise population. Re:search was initiated 

to estimate the total number of marine mammals 

killed annually. Analyses of existing commercial 

fishing data have been initiattxl, and preliminary 

results suggest that gillnet fishing is increasing 

(perhaps by 10 percent per year), and that there are 

pronounced seasonal and spatial patterns to fishing 

activity that overlap in part with the seasonal distribution patterns of harbor porpoise. Systematic 

observer sampling of commercial fishing vessels 

was initiated late in the fiscal year. Analyses of 

existing comn~ercial data and observer sampling 

will both be continued in 1990. Additionally, 

monitoring of a drift gillnet fishery for swordfish 

was initiated. 

Observer sampling of the domestic fishing fleet, 

especially focused on the Gulf of Maine gillnet 

fishery, but also including other fleets, is handled 

under this data collection contract. The data are 

collected using standardized forms and computer 

software, and made available to the PEFC for 

analysis. 

Analysis of existing data confirmed that the rate of 

take of several species of marine mammals in 

foreign fishing operations for marine mammals 

exceeds 1 per 20 days fishing. Data collected by 

observers in recent years were summarized and the 

distributions of pilot whales and Atlantic mackerel 

was analyzed. One hundred percent observer coverage (one observer per fishing trip) wiis continued, and an increased number of biological samples 

was collected. Preliminary experiments were conducted by scientists from the German Democratic 

Republic on methods of r~educing the i~ncidental 

take of cetaceans. Observer coverage will continue 

in 1990. 

1989 MMPA Annual Report 
WIII. MARINE MLiMMAL STRANDING NETWORKS 

Each year, approximately 1,400 pinnipeds and 600 

cetaceans strand along U.S. shorelines. To respond 

to incidents involving those species under its mana<gement authority, NMFS has established a series 

of marine mammal stranding networks. The networks are operated independently out of the 

Service's regional offices and are staffed primarily 

by volunteers. As networkmembers, thevolunteers 

are issued Letters of Authorization under sections 

1l39(h) and 1 12(c) of the Marine N[ammalProtection 

Act. 

The networks respond to sb-anclings of both live 

and dead marine mammals. Network members 

rescue and rehabilitate live sb:ancled animals. After 

treatment, these animals are restored to the wild or 

used for public display, thus avoiding the need to 

take an animal from the wild. Dead stranded 

animals are useful in advancing scientific information in such areas as marine mammal morphology, 

life history, disease and parasites, population dynamics, and effects of human imeractions. 

NMFS requires that certain bask information be 

collected from all strandings. 'This includes the 

name of the person responding 1.0 the stranding 

alert, the location of the stran~ding, and the species, 

length, sex, condition, and disposition of the animal or carcass. 

Since the networks were established in the early 

1980s, there has not been a comprehensive review 

to determine whether any changes are needed. 

Recognizing this, in 1989 NMFS initiated such a 

review. The expected comp1e:tion date is the end of 

1990. The results will guide: NVIFS in efforts to 

improve the Stranding Networks and to gain a 

maximum amount of scientific information from 

stranded marine mammals. 

Investigation of the 1987-1 988 East Coast 

Tursiops Die-off . - 

During 1987- 1988, an historically unprecedented 

mortality of bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) occurred along the east coast of the: United 

States. More than 740 carcasses were recovered. It 

is estimated that 50 percent or more of the coastal 

migratory stock between Florida and New Jersey 

may have died. With the assistance of the Marine 

Mammal Commission, the Department of Agriculture, the Environmental Protection Agency, and 

the U.S. Navy, the National Marine Fisheries Service mounted an investigation to determine the 

cause of the mortality. 

In April 1989, a report of the investigation was 

released. The report found that no single bacterial 

or viral agent could be identified as the cause of the 

mortality. A number of different illnesses were 

detected. Levels of organochlorines in the dolphins' blubber were among the highest ever recorded. Such substances were carried far some 

time in the animals and it would not be likely that 

there would be a synchronized mortality unless 

something else triggered the release of the chernical compounds from the blubber. 

Brevetoxin, a biotoxin produced by the dinoflagellate that causes red tide, was found in the livers of 

eight of the 17 animals tested, and no brevetoxin 

was detected in the control animals. It is hypothesized that brevetoxin alone, or .in cornb~ination 

with other factors, was responsible for the unusual 

mortality event. 

1989' MMPA Anriual Keport 
Table 8. Cetucean Strandings During 1989 

Harbor porpoise 

Gray whale 

Common dolphin 

Pygmy sperm whale 

Unidentified delphinid 

Risso's dolphin 

Long-finned pilot whale 

Striped dolphin 

Atlantic white-sided dolphin 

Pacific white-sided dolLphLin 

Sperm whale 

Spotted dolphin 

False killer whale 

Minke whale 

Right whale 

Unidentified cetacean 

Unidentified whale 

Beluga whale 

Dwarf sperm whale 

Dall's porpoise 

Gervais' beaked whale 

Killer whale 

Unidentified beaked whale: 

Blainville's beaked whale 

Cuvier's beaked whale 

Fin whale 

Humpback whale 

Unidentified baleen whale 

Bowhead whale 

Blue whale 

Clymene dolphin 

Dall's porpoise 

Pygmy killer whale 

Northern right -whale dolphin 

Short-finned pilot whale 

True's beaked whale 

Unidentified odontocete 

Unidentified pilot whale 

- -- 

Species --- Southwest Alaska Southeast Northeast 

Bottlenose dolphin 326l 24 

Includes 28 unconfirmed identifications 

Unconfiied identification 

1989 MMPA Annual Report 
Table 9. Pinniped Strandinlp Y),uring 1989 

Species Soul --- hwest Northeast 

California sea lion 4'18 

Northern. elephant seal 1 I6 

Harbor seal $2 116 

Unidentified pinniped 90 

Gray seal 13 

Northern sea lion 6 

Northern fur seal 4 

Harp seal 3 

Hooded seal 2 

Ringed seal 1 

Totals 716 135 

Regional Stranding Network Activities 

Southwest Region. In California, a total of 847 

strandings were reported in 1989; these include 

7 16 pinnipeds and 139 cetaceans (see Tables 8 and 

9). Pinniped strandings of interest included six 

northern sea lions and four northern fur seals. 

Cetacean strandings of interest included three unidentified beaked whales, one pygmy sperm whale, 

one spotteddalphin, and three strandings of Risso's 

dolphins involving two, three and five animals, 

respectively. 

Along with the stranding network, the Service's 

Southwest Region oversees a whale entanglement 

network. This network consists of five rescue 

teams located throughout California, and a number 

of participants who notify the: network whenever 

an entangled whale is encountered. In 1989, 10 

whale entanglements were documented; of these, 

two animals were released alive, four stranded, and 

the status of four animals was unknown. The 

majority of entanglements involved gray whales 

although one minke whale and one sperm whale 

were also involved. 

In Hawaii, a total of four cetaceans were reported 

to the Hawaii Stranding Network in 1989: one 

humpback whale, one short-finned pilot whale, 

one pygmy sperm whale, and one Cuvier's beaked 

whale. 

Southeast Region. A total of 417 strandings were 

reported in the Southeast Region during 1989. 

These included 298 bottlenose dolphins and 28 

others that were likely bottlenose dolphins. Eighteen cetacean species were reported. 

Actions in two areas should expand network coverage. In the Caribbean area, a network coordinator was appointed, and a program was initiated to 

recruit and train participants in Puerto Rico. In 

addition, seven veterinarians in and around Ft. 

Myers, FL, joined the network and have established areas of coverage to step up the response to 

strandings in that area. 

Northwest Region. A total of 390 strandings were 

reported to the Northwest Marine Mammal Stranding Network in 1989. Reports included 336 pinnipeds and 54 cetaceans. The stranding network is 

working to educate the public on the nature of 

pinniped haul-out behavior and pupping in order to 

reduce the possibility of pup abandonment due to 

human intervention. 

In the northwest, the general public is advised to 

report strandings to the Washington State Patrol or 

the Oregon State Police who relay the information 

to one of five stranding network response centers. 

The response centers coordinate the appropriate 

action, which varies from providing advice to dispatching a team of scientific investigators. 

Alaska Region. Because of the length of the 

Alaska coast and a dearth (of personnel, coverage 

by the Alaskan Marine Mammal Stranding Network is less complete than in other areas of the 

country. No attempt is made to quantify pinniped 

strandings. In 1989,73 cetacean strandings were 

reported. Of those, 43 were gray whales. Five 

whale entanglements were reported, and two gray 

whales and one humpback whale were released 

alive. 

1989 MMPA Annual Report 
IX. INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES 

The Department of Commerce furthers the protection and conservation of marine mammals under 

existing international agre:enlents and, when necessary, takes the initiative to negotiate additional 

agreements required to achieve the purposes of the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act. To carry out this 

intent, the National Marine 1:islheries Service participates in many international programs and activities. Efforts carried out during 1989 are discussed below. 

Commission for the Con~servation of 

Antarctic Marine Living IRlesources 

The Commission for the Conse~ation of Antarctic 

Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) and its Scientific Committee were establlished in 1982. The 

groups meet annually to consider issues related to 

Antarctic living resources. 'The Scientific Committee regularly reviews the status of marine mammal populations and, as necessary, makes recommendations to the Commission. The Commission 

also reviews annual reports by member nations 

concerning population assess~ments and steps taken 

to avoid the incidental mortality of Antarctic marine living resources. 

Marine Mammal Populal.io~ns. At its 1987 meeting, the Scientific Committee agreed to periodically review the status of marine mammal populations in the Antarctic, with particular attention to 

those populations whose nunnbers were significantly increasing or declining. The Commission 

endorsed this recommendatioin. Subsequently, a 

format was devised for u:se in summarizing the 

status of a given species at a particular breeding 

locality. To obtain current infolrmation, the format 

was provided to the Group of Specialists on Seals 

of the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research 

(SCAR) and to the Scienlific Committee of the 

International Whaling Commission. The responses 

from the two groups were discussed at the Scientific Committee's 1988 meeting. 

The SCAR Group of Specialists observed that the 

Antarctic fur seal (Arctocephalus gazella) is continuing to increase in abundance throughout its 

range. The focal point of this expansion is around 

South Georgia, where the consumption of fish by 

wintering male fur seals may be affecting the 

population dynamics of these fish. 

The group also noted that, based on available data, 

the South Georgia population of southern elephant 

seals (Mirounga leonina) appears to be stable although populations in the tndian Ocean are presently declining. In the Patagonia and South Shetland Islands regions, fluctuations in elephant seal 

numbers may be linked to the el Nino event. 

The SCAR Group of Specialists considered survey 

data from the Antarctic pack ice, noting in particular declines in the population density of crabeater 

seals (Lobodon carcinoph!agus) based on comparison of census data from the late 1960s and from 

1983. The Scientific Committee endorsed the 

recommendation of the SCAR Group of Specialists for periodic surveys of seals in selected areas of 

the pack ice to establish the basis for assessing 

trends over a number of years. Members were 

urged to set up national progams to take advantage 

of opportunities to census ice seals fiom ships 

cruising through pack ice areas. 

At its 1989 meeting, the Scientific Committee 

agreed that a comprehensive review of Antarctic 

seal populations should be undertaken every five 

years. It was noted that this schedule did not 

preclude addressing issues related to the status of 

populations any time discussion was warranted. 

The Committee also agreed to seek the advice of 

the SCAR Group of Speciidists when significant 

seal population declines are identified, specifilcally 
requesting guidlance concerning the likely or possible causes of particular declines and steps that 

might be taken to reverse the trend. 

Assessment and Avoidance of Kncidental Mortality. The Commission at its 1987 meeting approved a brochure to inform fishermen, researchers, and others working in the Convention Area 

about potentially hazardous marine debris. The 

Conmission also approved a placard for display 

aboiud ships operating in the Conxention area 

detailing the "do's and don'ts" of handling, storing, and discarding refuse. Members were urged to 

distribute the brochure widely among their nationals working in Antarctica and to ensure that all 

vessel operators were provided with the placard. 

Members also agreed to request that nationals 

working in the Convention Area report observations; of lost or discarded fishing gear and periodically survey beaches and seal colonies near 

coastal stations for accumulation of debris. The 

repoirts presented by member nations indicated, 

among other things, that the debris collected contained a high percentage of plastic. In addition, the 

reports noted fur seals on Bird Island, South Georgia, were becoming entangled in manme debris of 

human origin to such an extent that 5,000 to 10,000 

animals may be affected. Argentina and the United 

States reported on efforts to assess arld minimize 

the effects of oil released into the rimrine environment following the wreck of the Bahia Paraiso 

near Palmer Station on January 28, 1989. 

To ensure that the loss or disposal sf nets, net 

fragments, and other potentially hazardous debris 

do nor threaten marine resources in the Convention 

Area, members agreed to maintain a complete 

record of lost fishing gear; to collect where feasible 

derelict marine debris; to periodically survey 

beaches and seal and penguin colonies near coastal 

stations; to ask nationals to report olbservations of 

derelict marine debris; to attempt to determine 

practical methods for marking fishing gear; and to 

maintain an inventory of the types and quar~tities of 

netting used in the Convention Area. 

At its 1988 meeting, the Commission asked the 

chairman of the Scientific Committee to correspond with the SCAR Group of Specialists on 

Seals prior to the 1989 meeting concerniing incidental mortality, ingestion of plastics, and entanglement in marine debris. In reply, the SCAR 

Group suggested steps be taken to stand. CKT d' ize a 

sampling scheme at breeding colonies to monitor 

the incidence of entanglement of pinnipeds in 

marine debris. The SCAR Group also identified a 

need to acquire more detailed information on seal 

entanglement at sea in order to assess the magnitude of the problem. The Commission aslked the 

Scientific Committee to continue to consult with 

the SCAR group to assist in identifying, designing, 

and implementing progiims to assess and monitor 

the effects of marine debiris and incidental catch on 

marine mammal populations in the Convention 

Area. 

At its 1986 meeting, Cotrunission members agreed 

to take necessary steps to ensure that operators of 

vessels operating in the Convention Area record 

and report the number, species, and, where ,appropriate, the age or sex and reproductive status of any 

marine mammals taken incidentally during fishing 

operations. At its 1989 meeting, the Commission 

called upon its members to review measures taken 

to date and to take additional measures to ensure 

record-keeping and reporting as agreed to in 1986. 

The Commission asked the Scientific Committee 

to provide advice on steps that could be taker1 to 

better assess and minimize the incidental take: of 

marine mammals during fishing operations. 

At the 1989 meeting, the lJnited States sought and 

received confirmation of'i ts understanding that gill 

nets are not being used by Commission member<; in 

the Convention Area and that members have no 

plans to use them in the future. In this regard, Japan 

noted that there are no resources in the Conventwon 

Area that could be caught more effectively wi~h gill 

nets than with any other types of fishing gear. 
I Convent.ion for the Conservation of 

Antarctic Seals 

The Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic 

Seals (CC'AS) was signed in London on February 

1 1, 1972. Under the convention, contracting parties were to meet within five years of enmy into 

force of the Convention, and at least eve:ry five 

years thereafter, to review the operation of the 

Convention. In 1983, the United Kingdlom, as 

depository government, offered to host a rneeting 

of parties. However, because no commercial sealing 

had been carried out in the Antarctic since the 

Convention entered into force, a meeting was not 

considered necessary and the offer was declined. 

The current population of Antarctic seal stocks is 

estimated at 15 million. During the 11986/1987 

fishing season, the Soviet Union conducted a commercial sealing expedition and research cruise in 

the Antarctic area. During this cruise, 4,802 

crabeater, leopard, Ross, and Weddell &Is were 

taken. Prior to the Soviet expedition, there was no 

reported c~ornmercial seal harvest However, during the period covering the 197811979 through 

l984Il985; seasons, 2,138 seals were repolrted killed 

or captured in the Antimtic for scientific research 

purposes. 

As aresult of the Soviet sealing expedition, the first 

meeting of convention parties took place September 12- 16,1988. Delegations to the meeting agreed 

only to changes in the operation of the Convention 

which could be accomplished without arnertdment 

of the agre:ement itself. In part, this decision was 

based on the Parties' judgment that Antiuctic seal 

stocks are healthy, abundant, and unlikely to be 

subject to commercial exploitation any time in the 

foreseeable future. The latter perception was based 

on the indication by the Soviet delegatiorl that it has 

no plans to resume commercial sealiing in the 

Antarctic. 

In part, the: Parties' decision reflected the concern 

that amendment of the Convention would require 

domestic legislation by the Party governments, 

which might have repercussions on the 1'391 deliberations on the Antarctic Treaty. Thus, the CCAS 

meeting limited its recommendations to amendments to the Annex to the Convention or other 

institutional action independent of the terms of the 

Convention. The most notable of these recornmendations were: 

Special Permits. The Meeting agreed that Contracting Parties should restrict the number of seals 

killed or captured by special pem~it (i.e., to providle 

food for men or dogs, to provide for scientific 

research, or to provide specimens for museums and 

educational or cultural institutions) to the minimum number necessary. It further agreed to encourage cooperative planning among holders of 

special permits for scientific research and indicated the kinds of scientific information that 

Contracting Parties must report. 

Exchange of Information. The Meeting recorrrmended that Section 6 of the Annex be amended to 

change the reporting period and date for submission of reports to the Scientific Committee for 

Antarctic Research (SCAR) so that SCAR coulld 

provide advice to Contracting Parties prior to the 

next sealing season. It also identified information 

to be included in these reports. 

Commercial Sealing. 'The Meeting further recommended that Section 6 of the: Annex be amended 

to increase from 30 to 60 days the advance notification that a Contracting Party must give other 

Contracting Parties prior to leaving home port for 

a commercial sealing expedition. The Meeting 

directed that the Contracting Parties consider two 

factors when determining if commercial sealing 

had begun and in proposing future meetings of thr: 

Contracting Parties: (a) whether the number of 

seals of any species taken exceeded what could 

reasonably be required for special permit purposes; 

and (b) the number of seasons in which the taking 

of seals in such numbers has occurred. 

Sealing Zones and Catch Concentrations. The 

Meeting recommended tltiat Contracting Party scientists and SCAR continue to review appropriate: 

boundaries for sealing zones. It also agreed that 

1989 MMPA Annual Report 
I SCAR should carry out studies, propose measures 

to avoid over-concentration of catches, and report 

to the Convention if harvestin,g activities appear to 

be having significantly harmful effects. 

Protected Species. The Meeting recommended 

that Section 2 of the Anne K be: amended to prohibit 

the taking of Weddell seal pups during the breeding 

season. 

The Driftnet Impact Monitoring, 

Assessment, and Controll Act 

Large-scale pelagic driftnet fisheries have rapidly 

expanded in the North and South Pacific Oceans 

and elsewhere during the past decade. About 600 

driftnet vessels from Japan, 'Taiwan, and the Republic of Korea fish in the North Pacific Ocean for 

flying squid. Several hundred driftnet vessels from 

Japan and Taiwan also fish in the North Pacific for 

albacore and billfish. The driftnets used in these 

fisheries are typically 20-50 lun long and are deployed nightly in the upper 10 - 15 m of the ocean in 

areas and months where the target species are 

concentrated near the sea suiface. Various living 

marine resources of interest to the United States, 

including marine mammals, seabirds, marine turtles, 

and numerous species of fish a nd cephalopods, are 

killed in these fisheries, either as target species or 

incidentally. The United States is concerned that 

mortality levelsresulting frorn driftnet fishing may 

be threatening some populi~tio~n~ of these resources 

as well as their ecosystems. 

There are no known driftnet fisheries that do not 

incidentally take marine mammals, but little is 

known about the populatilon status of the marine 

mammal species affected bjy large-scale pelagic 

driftnet fisheries. In May 1989, the Secretary of 

Commerce advised Congress that the expected 

annual bycatch of marine maimmals in the North 

Pacific high-seas squid fishery alone may be in the 

tens of thousands. The relatively slow rate of 

recruitment typical of populations of large marine 

mammals and the cumulative effects of driftnet 

operations make it likely that some populations in 

the North Pacific are being adverselly affected. 

Possible impacts on the threatened northern fur 

seal are of particular concern. It is the view of the 

United States that marine mammal populations 

impacted by large-scale pelagic dnftnet fishing 

should be protected until reliable assessments are 

made. 

In addition, Japan conducts a high-seas driftnet 

fishery for salmonids in the North Pacific under the 

International North Pacific Fisheries Commission 

(INPFC) and the U.S.S.R./Japan Treaty of 1956. 

The INPFC, to which the United States and Canada 

also belong, regulates the Japanese high-seas salmonid driftnet fishery and serves as a forum for 

cooperative research on high-seas salmonid matters. Although this fishery is sanctioned under the 

INPFC, the United States is concerned that highseas driftnet fishing for immature salmonids is 

inefficient and indiscriminate. Further, there is 

uncontested evidence that some driftnet. vessels 

ostensibly fishing for flying squid have instead 

targeted salmonids, in violation of international 

law. 

In 1987, as a result of concern over the high-seas 

salmon fishery, the illegal take of salmon on the 

high seas, and incidental mortality to marine mammals and seabirds, Congress passed the Driftnet 

Impact Monitoring, Assessment, and Control Act. 

The Act required that the Secretary of Commerce, 

through the Secretary of State and in cooperation 

with the Secretary of the Interior, negotiate cooperative agreements with those countries whose 

nationals conduct North Pacific high-seas driftnet 

fisheries and take marine iresources of interest to 

the United States. Specifically, the Act called for 

the negotiation of: (1) monitoring and assessment 

programs involving the deployment of scientific 

observers on driftnet vessels, and (2) enforcement 

programs with particular emphasis on the control 

of squid driftnet fishing in seasons and areas where 

salmon might be taken. 

1989 MMPA Annual Report 
1 'In response to the Act, the United States success- 

.fully negotiated agreements vvith Japan, Korea, 

,and representatives of Taiwan to establish moni- 

,toring and enforcement progrxms. 

Japanese Program. On June 23,1989, the United 

States, Canada, and Japan reached an agreement 

for the monitoring and regulation of the Japanese 

squid driftnet fishery in 19 8'3. The pilot monitoring 

program carried out during 1989 involved placement of 46 observers (nine from the United States, 

five from Canada, and 32 from Japan) on 32 Japanese squid vessels. Data collected during the pilot 

program are currently being analyzed and a summary report is expected by Jul:y 1990. 

Taiwanese Program. On August 25, 1989, the 

American Institute in Taiwan (AIT), representing 

the American people, concluded a two-year driftnet 

agreement with the Coordination Council for North 

American Affairs (CCNAA), the representative of 

the authorities on Taiwan. The two-year cooperative program established undeir the agreement for 

the North Pacific Ocean calls for: 14 AIT and 10 

CCNAA scientific observers to be placed on 24 

Taiwanese driftnet vessels operating in the North 

Pacific in 1990; vessel location-fixing satellite 

transmitters to be installed on all Taiwanese largeand small-mesh driftnet and tramsport vessels; and 

verification by AIT enforcement consultants that 

such vessels are complying with agreed fishing 

regulations. 

Korean Program. On October 6,1989, the United 

States concluded a similar two-year agreement for 

the North Pacific Ocean with the Republic of 

Korea. This agreement prcwides for, among other 

things: 13 U.S. and 13 Kort:m scientific observers 

to be placed on 26 Korean squid driftnet vessels in 

1990; vessel location-fixing satellite transmitters 

to be placed on all Korean driftnet and transport 

vessels; and verification by the. U.S. Coast Guard 

that such vessels are complying with agreed fishing regulations. 

Multilateral Efforts. On December 22, '1989, the 

United Nations General Assembly adopted by consensus a driftnet resolution co-sponsored by the 

United States. The resolution prohibits expansion 

of high-seas driftnet fishing, and calls forreview of 

all driftnet data by June 30, 1991, a cessation of 

South Pacific driftnet fishing by July 1, 199 1, and 

a worldwide cessation of driftnet fishing by July 1, 

1992, unless effective conservation and management measures are taken. The determination of 

effective conservation and rnanagement measures 

is to be made by statistically sound analysis jointly 

undertaken by concerned parties. The United States 

is currently considering how best to implement the 

U.N. resolution. 

International North Pacific Fisheries 

Commission 

At the 1989 annual meeting of the INPFC, the 

subcommittee on marine mammals reviewed several reports pertaining to research on marine mammals, primarily Dall's porpoise, in the Convention 

area. These reports included biological studies on 

Dall's porpoise caught incidentally by Japan's 

land-based salmon fishery, studies on the reduction of incidental catch of Dall's porpoise through 

the use of modified driftnet gear, and estimates of 

abundance of Dall's porpoise stocks in the Bering 

Sea and North Pacific Ocean. The subcommittee 

also reviewedcurrent research activities, including 

the numbers of marine mammals taken in Japan's 

mothership and land-based salmon fisheries during 1989. Finally, the subcommittee reviewed and 

proposed plans for marine mammal research during 1990 in the Convention area. 

International Whaling C:ommission 

The United States had two primary objectives for 

the 4 1 st Annual Meeting held in 1989: to continue 

the commercial moratorium on whaling and to 

continue monitoring research proposed and con1989 MMPA Annual Report 
ducted under special pernlits.. These objectives 

were achieved. 

The Commercial Moratorium. The moratorium 

decision reached at the July I982 IWC meeting 

reads as follows: 

Notwithstanding the other provisions 

ofparagraph 10 [which provide for otherwise allowable commercial whaling], catch 

limits for the killing for cc~mrnercial purposes of whales from all stocks for the 

1986 coastal and the 1 985l186pe1agic seasons and thereafter shll be zero. This 

provision will be kept u,nder review, based 

upon the best scientific advice, and by 

1990 at the latest the Ccwnmission will 

undertake a compreherasive assessment of 

the eflects of this decision on whale stocks 

and consider modification! of this provision and the establishment of other catch 

limits. 

Four member governments (Japan, Norway, Peru, 

and the U.S.S.R.) exercised their right under the 

Convention to file an objection to the moratorium, 

thereby making it inapplicaible to them as a matter 

of treaty law. On July 22,1983, Peru withdrew its 

objection. In 1985 the Soviet: Union announced 

that it would temporarily stop ccommercial whaling 

for the 1987-1988 Antarctic whaling season. Soviet nations did not launch a whaling expedition in 

1987 and subsequently the Soviet Union announced 

that it had no plans to resume lwhaling. 

In 1986, the Government of Norway announced 

that it would end commercial whaling following 

the 1987 season, and in 1988 its nationals did not 

conduct commercial whaling operations. Also in 

1986, the Government of Japan notified the IWC 

that it was withdrawing its objection to take effect 

ion May 1, 1987, with respect to commercial pelagic whaling; on October l., 1987, with respect to 

commercial coastal whaling for minke and Bryde's 

whales; and on April 1, 1988, with respect to 

commercial coastal sperm whaling. 

The 41st Annual Meeting did not amend ithe moratorium decision or take any action to modify its 

substance. 

Special Permits. Since 1985, the Commission has 

focused attention on research programs by which 

member countries may issue special pennits to 

take whales. In 1985, the IWC Scientific Committee formulated guidelines governing the review of 

such special permits. In 1986, the Commission 

adopted a resolution that further defined the criteria under which special permits should be issued 

and recommended certain actions to be taken by 

contracting governments regarding the issuance of 

permits and the disposition of the whale meat and 

other whale products taken under special permits. 

At the 1987 IWC meeting, the United States along 

with five co-sponsors prolposed a resolution to 

include additional criteria for use by the Scientific 

Committee when reviewing research proposed 

under speeial permits. The resolution, which was 

adopted by the Commission, also provided a 

mechanism for the Commission to recommend to 

member governments, when appropriate, that they 

refrain from issuing or revoke such permits. The 

Commission then adopted resolutions recommending that the Governments of the Republic of 

Korea, Iceland, and Japan refrain from issuing 

special permits or take ste:ps to revoke permits 

currently in force until they had been approved by 

the Scientific Committee. 

At the 1989 meeting, Iceland, Japan, and Norway 

submitted research programs involving the taking 

of whales. In considering: these programs, the 

Commission noted that Iceland had announced that 

it would not take whales for scientific purposes in 

1990, that it had no plans to do so in the following 

years, and that the proposedl take of 10 sei whales 

in 1989 would no longer be necessary. 'I'hus, the 

Commission invited Iceland to reconsider its proposed take of 80 fin whales in 1989. Iceland later 

announced that it had revised the proposed take to 

68 whales. 

1989 MMPA Annual Report 
1 The Commission also adiopted resolutions concerning the proposal by Japiul to take 400 mintke 

whales from Area 4 of the Southern Hemisphere, 

and Norway's proposal to take 20 rninke whales 

from the northeastern Atlantic stock. In both 

instances, the Commission coincluded that the program did not satisfy applicable criteria and invited 

the sponsoring governmeint to reconsider its program. The vote was 13 to 6, eight abstaining, on 

Japan's program, and 15 to 6, six abstaining, on 

Norway's proposal. Under terms of the 19187 

Resolution on Scientific Permits, if all applicalble 

criteria are not met, then the Contracting Government is recommended to refrain from issuing or to 

revoke permits authorizing talking under aresearch 

program. All resolutions of' the Commission ,are 

non-binding but express the sense of the Commission. 

Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling. No changes 

were made to the existing aboriginal subsistence 

catch limits for: (1) Bering-Chukchi-Beaufbrt 

Seas bowhead whales (1989-11991) taken by Alaskan Eskimos; (2) eastern North Pacific gray whales 

(1989-1991) taken on behalf of Soviet aboriginal 

natives and by Alaskan Eskimos; and (3) North 

Atlantic humpback whales (198711988- 1989119'98) 

taken by Bequians of St. Vincent and the Grenadines. 

The Commission established the following aboriginal subsistence catch limits: (1) Central .Atlantic minke whales, taken by East Greenland 

residents, 12 animals in each of the years 1990- 

1992; (2) West Greenland minke whales, taken by 

West Greenland residents, 1.90 animals for the 

years 1990- 199 1, with a maximum of 100 in any 

one year; and (3) West Greenland fin whales, taken 

by residents of West Greenland, 42 animals for the 

years 1990- 199 1, maximum of 23 in any one year. 

Comprehensive Assessm~ent. As noted above, the 

moratorium decision adopted by the IWC in 1982 

specified that, by 1990 at the latest, the Commission would undertake a comprehensive assessment 

of the effects of moratorium on whale stocks. At its 

1989 meeting, the Commission noted that a comprehensive assessment of all stocks could not be 

completed in 1990. It therefore endorsed the recommendation of the Scientific Committee that 

such an assessment be completed at or before the 

1990 annual meeting on: (1 ) Southern Hemisphere 

minke whales; (2) North Atlantic minke whales; 

and (3) eastern North Pacific gray whales. 

Along with a cleaq understanding of the status of 

involved whale stocks, a competent management 

scheme will be needed in the future if the moratorium is modified to allow other than zero catch 

limits. The United States believes that past IWC 

management procedures failed to maintain whale 

stocks at desired levels and that the current moratorium is the preferred management procedure 

until agreement can be reached on a new one. The 

Scientific Committee is developing and evaluating 

five different management procedures according 

to an agreed set of protocols. The evaluation of the 

different management procedures will not be completed before 199 1. 

Humane Killing. At the 1989 meeting, the U.S. 

delegation discussed successful efforts undertaken 

during the fall 1988 and spring 1989 bowhead 

whale hunts to improve weapons being used in 

order to make the taking more humane. The 

delegation also addresseld the possible use of 

acoustic pingers for recovering struck whales, the 

need for further work on determining the appropriate propellent charge for use in the darting gun, 

and the feasibility of impr~~vements to the shoulder 

gun. 

Members also discussed Greenland's plans to introduce adetonating grenade harpoon for fin whales, 

and Denmark agreed to submit information next 

year on the rifle hunt of rninke whales in Greenland. 

However, Denmark refused a request by the United 

Kingdom to provide furtlher information on the 

Faroe Islands pilot whale hunt, asserting that management of pilot whales is beyond the competence 

of the Commission. There was no consensus on 

this point. St. Vincent and the Grenadines provided information on the humpback whale: hunt off 

Bequia. It was noted that the only remaining 

1989 MMPA Annual Fkport 
I har,pooner is now 68 years old, and the government 

intends that there be no further wha.ling after this 

individual ceases whaling. Therefore, no effort is 

being made to improve hunting methods. 

Finance and Administration. At the 1989 meeting, the Commission suspended the votingrights of 

several nations because of non-payment of their 

me~nber contributions. Nations affected were 

Antigua and Barbuda, Costa Rica, Kenya, Peru, 

Senegal, Solomon Islands, and Uruguay. 

The Commissisn faced critical financial circumstances this year. As has occurred frequently in 

recent years, the Commission received only 75 

percent of the contibutions from me~mber governments, resulting in a budget shortfall of 104,886 

pounds sterling. In the past, the Cornmission has 

been able to draw on reserves in the General Fund, 

but to do so in 1.989 would have lefit the General 

Fund at a dangeirously low level by the end of the 

financial year (August 3 1,1989) and run a serious 

risk of insolvency by May 1990. 

The Commissioil recognized that member contibutions would have to be raised substantially this 

year in order for e:ssential work to be carried out and 

to avert insolvency in 1990. R.ecognizing the 

urgent need to find a long-term sohtion, the Commission will continue its deliberations on the most 

appropriate method of allocating member contribution shares. 

Japanese Proposal for a Small-type Whaling 

Category. Since adoption of a moratorium on 

comrnercial whaling in 1982, certain IWC members lhave attempted to draw a distinction between 

large-scale pelagic whaling and smaller operations 

which, although small, may still involve commercial sale of whale products. Japan, in particular, 

has sought IWC approval of a new category of 

whaling, referred to as "small-type whaling." This 

category would be similar to aboriginal/subsistence whaling in that it would permit whaling by 

small communities that have traditionally taken 

whales for social or religious purpose:^. It would 

differ from subsistence whaling in that commercial 

sale of whale meat is involved. As presently 

defined in the IWC Schedule, small-type whaling 

involves catching operations using powered vessels with mounted harpoon guns directed a/- minke, 

bottlenose, beaked, pilot, or killer whales. It is 

considered a forn~ of commercial whaling and, as 

such, is included under the zero quota. 

In 1989, a working group of the IWC Technical 

Committee met to consider small-type whaling, 

but neither it nor the Conmission was able to refine 

the definition of this form of whaling beyond that 

already found in the IWC Schedule. Neither could 

the groups resolve the question of whether any 

particular examples of small-type whaling, (situations in Iceland, Japan, and Norway were examined) can be distinguished from comrnercial 

whaling. The Cornmiss ion agreed to combine the 

mandate of rhis working group with the working 

group on socio-economic implications of' the 

moratorium and asked the combined group to meet 

prior to the 1990 a~nnual meeting. : 

As it had in 1988, Japan requested an emergency 

interim quota of minke whales from the Okhotsk 

Sea-West Pacific stock in its small-type coastal 

whaling communities. Although sympathetic to 

the plight of the communities affected, the: Commission did not approve the request. 

US.-U.S.S.R. Marine Mammal Project 

The primary goal of this cooperative research program is to study the biology, ecology, and population dynamics of marine niarnrnal species of interest 

to both countries, and to foster effective management of these animals. The Service's National 

Marine Marnrnal Laboratory staff chairs the project 

for the United Stares and, during 1989, helped 

organize six major exchanges, including the second joint sea otter workshop and a series of joint 

walrus studies carried out by the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 

In 1989, Soviet researchers participated in U.S. 

aerial surveys of Steller sea lions in the Alcxtian 

1989 MMPA Annual Report 
Islands and western Gulf of Alaska while Ameri- specialists under the U.S.S.R. national program. 

can scientists participated in ii survey of sea lions The survey data from the Aleutians and the western 

ion the Kurile Islands ion the Soviet research vessel Gulf of Alaska indicate the population continued to 

,Rubezhnoe. Aerial surveys of sea lions on the decline since the prc;:ceding survey in 11985. 

Kamchatka Peninsula were carnted out by Soviet 

1'989 MMPA Annual Report 
LAW ENFORCEMENT 

Law enforcement is an important part of the 

Service's management program. The Marine 

Mammal Protection Act makes it illegal to take or 

import marine mammals or their parts or products 

unless an exception has been granted. The provisions of the Act are enforced by NMFS special 

agents and by state enforcement officers who are 

deputized under agreements authorized by the 

MMPA. In 1988- 1989, NMFS employed about 95 

special agents and had cooperative enforcement 

agreements to enforce the MMPA with the States 

of Rhode Island, New Jersey,, South Carolina, 

Florida, Alabama, Louisiana, California, Oregon, 

and Washington, as well as the Virgin Islands. 

During the reporting period, NMFS and state enforcement personnel investigated 393 alleged violations of the MMPA. Of these, 122 were associated with he Pacific tuna purse seine fishery. 

Unlawful tiking of marine ~mzmmals, including 

harassment., accounted for 107 alleged violations, 

78 involved unlawful importations (primarily of 

marine mammal parts and products), and 36 concerned the failure of comn-~ercial fishermen to 

obtain certificates of exemption for their vessels. 

The remaining 50 incidents involved an assortment 

of other violations. 

Effective January 1989, NhllX;!Z regulations required that official observers be placed on all 

fishing trips conducted by U.S. tuna purse seiners. 

This requirement accounts for the large number of 

violations clocumented in the ltuna purse seine 

fishery during the period. Fonty-t wo of those cases 

involved im,proper net safety planels, 18 were based 

on setting fishing gear on prohibited species or 

~concentratictns of marine mammals, 18 were related to illegal sundown sets, and44 involved other 

violations. 

Enforcement cases of particular interest during the 

ireporting period include: 

In December 19818, two persons were sentenced 

in U.S. Distriict Court in Los Angeles after pleading 

nolo contena!ere to a charge of blowing up a sea 

lion in Huntington ]Beach, CA. One defendant was 

sentenced to one year in jail, five years' probation 

and a $500 fine. The second defendant received 60 

days in a treatment center, 1,200 hours of community service, and a $500 fine. 

In July 1988, a captain of a U.S. tuna seiner was 

convicted in U.S. District Court in San Diego of 

shooting a dolphin. He was sentenceid to 60 days 

in jail and fined $11,000. This case was the first 

criminal prosecutioln of a U.S. tuna captain. 

In Novemher 19138, a charter boat captain pled 

guilty in U.S. District Court in San Diego to shooting at sea lioxis and was sentenced tct two years' 

probation and 240 hours of community service. 

Two incidents of dolphin harassment, one on 

Oahu and one on Kauai, were brought before the 

U.S. Distrkt Court in Honolulu in March 1989.. 

The Kauai defendant pled guilty and was fined 

$250 and 200 hours of community service. In the 

Oahu case, the defendant was tried, found guilty, 

and fined $250. 

In March 1989, a native Hawaiian residing on 

Kauai was chia-ged with killing a Hawaiian monk 

seal. The defendant subsequently pled guilty and 

was sentenced to one year in jail. This was the first 

case ever prosecuted involving a Hawaiian monk 

seal. The issue of native Hawaiian rights was 

raised by the defendant but was not supported by 

local Hawaiian native associations. 

In June 1989, a fishherman on the Islanld of Hawaii 

was charged with using explosives to kill dolphins 

that allegedly were interfering with hi!; fishing 

operations. The delendant pled guilty and was 

awaiting sentencing at the end of 1989. 

1989 MMPA Annual Rcporl 
The captain and acrew member of aPanama City, 

FT, shark longliner pled guilty to charges that in 

August 1988 the:y harpooned dolphins and cut 

them up, while alive, for bait. Both defendants 

were sentenced to 60 days in jail and fined $1,050. 

In addition, the owner of the fishing vessel paid 

$9,000 to settle an in rem seizure instituted against 

his vessel. 

* In late 1988, a Seattle-based leather company 

al1ege:dly offered for sale 18 seal hidles illegally 

imported from Canada. NMFS special agents 

seized the skins and several pieces of leather apparel made of rriarine mammal parts from the 

company. The case was presented for prosecution 

to the U.S. Attorney's Office in Seattle. At the end 

of 1989, it was expected that the case would soon 

go before a grand jury. 

In July 1988, a mew member of a fishing vessel 

allegedly shot a lhumpback whale several times 

with a high-powered rifle in Bechevin Bay on the 

Alaska peninsula. An investigation of the incident 

was completed in September 1989, and the case is 

pending with the U.S. A.ttomey's Office in Anchorage. 

In September 1988, three residents of St.. Paul 

Island, Alaska, were cited for unlawfully harvesting five fur seal pups outside the native subsi,; tence 

harvest season. The case is pending with the U.S. 

Attorney's Office in Anclhorage. 

In April 1989, a Kodiak, AK, a fisherman was 

cited for harassing a sea lion in Kodiak Harbor. 

The fisherman was phot~ographed by an NMFS 

surveillance team as he repeatedly hurled rocks at 

the sea lion basking on the beach to provokx the 

animal into charging at hitn. These activities were 

apparently carried out in order to obtain video 

footage of the animal. 'The subject subsequently 

paid a $2,000 civil penaky. 

1989 MIWA Annual liewrt 
XI. LEGAL ACTIONS 

Federation of Japan Salmon Fisheries Cooperative Association et al. v. Baldrige (D.C. Cir. 

1988): As was reported in the Service's Annual 

Report dated June 1988, the court ruled on this case 

on February 16, 1988. The court found that issuance of a permit to allow incidental taking of 

various species of protected rnarine mammals is 

prohibited unless it is first ascertained that the 

populations of those species ;are at the optimum 

sustainable population levlel. On April 15, 1989, 

attorneys for Kokechik and Qlalluyaat Fishermen's 

Associations filed a motion pursuant to the Equal 

Access to Justice Act for attorney's fees and costs 

in the amount of $81,240.1:2 arising out of the 

Kokechik litigation. That motion was pending at 

the end of 1989. 

Earth Island Institute v. Verity (N.D Cal. 1988): 

This suit brought by Earth Island Institute (En) 

challenged two sets of NOAA regulations: those 

governing operations of U.S. tuna purse seine 

vessels and those governing import of yellowfin 

tuna. In the first instance, th~e: complaint alleged 

that NOAA failed to enforce: the MMPA with 

respect to the requirement that purse seine tuna 

vessels use the best marine mammal safety techniques and equipment. In the second instance, the 

complaint alleged that NOAA did not comply with 

the MMPA requirement to prohibit the importation 

of yellowfin tuna from nations that do not have 

marine mammal kill rates comparable to U.S. kill 

rates. By way of an rn application, the 

plaintiffs on January 5, 1989, inloved for a preliminary injunction compelling NOAA to require 100 

percent observer coverage on 1J .S. purse seine tuna 

vessels for 1989, under section 104(h)(2)(B)(viii) 

{of the MMPA. Thecourt granted plaintiffs' motion 

ion January 5, 1989, and issued a temporary restraining order requiring 100 percent observer coverage for the U.S. tuna fleet. On January 9, 1989, 

NOAA filed an opposition brief to the issuance of 

a preliminary injunction. On Janu,ary 18,1989, the 

court issued a preliminary injunction requiring the 

placement of official obseirvers on all U.S. purse 

seine vessels. 

On August 14, 1989, the plaintiffs moved for 

partial summary judgment, asking that the court 

interpret section 10l(a)(2)(~)(~) of the MMPA to 

require that the Secretary of Commerce mandate 

100 percent observer coverage on purse seine tuna 

vessels from foreign nations. The plaintiffs also 

sought a permanent injunction enjoining the Secretary of the Treasury to ban the importation of 

yellowfin tuna from those nations unless the harvesting nations documented that they had observers on 100 percent of their purse seine tuna vessels. 

On August 24,1989, the court denied theplaintiffs' 

motion for partial summary judgment, holding that 

Congress did not intend to require 100 percent 

observer coverage on foreign purse seine vessels. 

On November 17,1989, NOAA filed a motion for 

partial summary judgment seeking a ruling that it 

had properly implemented provisions of the MMPA 

as to the best marine mammal safety techniques 

and equipment that are economically practicable, 

and that the agency had complied with the requirement to investigate alternative fishing technologies. A hearing on the motion was scheduled for 

February 5, 1990. As of the end of 1989, the 

lawsuit was still active. 

Progressive Animal Welfare Society et al. v. Navy 

(W.D. Wash. 1989): On April 5, 1989, the Progressive Animal Welfare Society (PAWS) and 

several other environmental groups filed suit in 

U.S. District Court in Seattle, WA, against the 

Navy, the Department of Commerce, the Adrninistrator of NOAA, and the Assistant Administrator 

for Fisheries. The suit concerned the take of 

bottlenose dolphins for use at a Navy submarine 

1989 MMPA Annual Report 
facility in Bangor, WA. PAWS alleged that three 

permits issued under the MNIPA and a "concurrence 

letter" issued by the Secretary of Commerce under 

1OU.S.C. section 7524 [legislation enactedin 1986 

authorizing the Navy to take up to 25 marine 

mammals for national defense purposes] to allow 

the Navy to take bottlenose dolphins from the wild 

violated the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA), the Adrninistrativehocedures Act (APA), 

and the MMPA. 

'The allegations brought under NEPA were based 

on NOAA's decision not to pepare an environmental assessment (EA) or. an environmental impact statement (EIS) on its issuance of the permits 

or the concurrence letter and its failure to provide 

a reasoned explanation as to why it did not prepare 

an EA or EIS. The allegations made under APA 

and MMPA charged that the Commerce Department decision to issue the permits and the concurrence document in violation of NEPA was arbitrary, an abuse of discretion, and not in accordance 

with law. The plaintiffs also alleged that the Navy 

and Commerce violated all three Acts by deciding 

to allow bottlenose dolphins to be used by the Navy 

in Puget Sound. PAWS soqh~t declaratory judgments that the issuance of the permits and the 

concurrence letter allowing the take of bottlenose 

dolphins and the Navy's decision to deploy the 

animals in Puget Sound were unlawful under NEPA, 

APA, and MMPA. PAWS also sought injunctive 

relief against the deployment of bottlenose dolphins anywhere in Puget S'ountd until the Federal 

defendants had complied with NEPA. 

The Navy filed a motion to dismiss the complaint 

and, on November 3, 1989, the court denied the 

motion, holding that the Navy's decision to deploy 

bottlenose dolphins in Puget Sound was a major 

Federal action under NEPA and required analysis 

of the effects of such action om the dolphins themselves. The court also held that Commerce's letter 

of concurrence to the Navy was a major Federal 

action that could affect the environment, and thus, 

also required analysis under Nli3PA. As a result of 

these decisions, the parties began settlement negotiations that were continuing at the end of 1989. 

Animal Protection Institute (API) v. Mosbacher 

and Shedd Aquarium 0.D.C. 1989): On June 

12, 1989, the Animal Protection Institute (APT) 

filed suit seeking to block the importation of two 

false killer whales from Japan by the Shedd 

Aquarium. The plaintiff alleged that the permit 

authorizing the importation was granted in violation of section 101(a)(3)(A) of the MMPA. This 

provision requires that, for purposes of waiving the 

requirements of the MMPA, the Secretary of Commerce must certify that the country from which the 

marine mammals are to be imported has a program 

for taking marine mammals that is consistent with 

the MMPA. API further alleged that: (a) Japan's 

program for taking marine mammals is not consistent with the MMPA; and (b) that the permit was 

issued without assurances required by section 102 

of the MMPA that the permittee would comply 

with the prohibitions against importation of animals that, at the time of taking, were pregnant, 

nursing, or less than eight months old, or that were 

taken in an inhumane manner. 

On August 11, 1989, NOAA filed a response 

denying the allegations. Subsequent to this filing, 

the parties and the court agreed to hold the lawsuit 

in abeyance while Shedd A~quarium sought modification of its permit to collect marine mammals off 

Hawaii. In November 19119, NOAA decided to 

suspend consideration of the modification requirement until more data on popiulations stocks of false 

killer whales in Hawaiian waters is provided. A 

status conference was held on November 6, 1989, 

at which time the judge ordered filing of cross 

motions for summary judgment in January 1990. 

As of the end of 1989, this lawsuit was still active. 

Progressive Animal Welfare Society v. Department of Commerce, Mosbacher, Evans, 

Brennan, and John G. Shedd Aquarium (W.D. 

Wash. 1989): On August 26,1987, NOAA issued 

a permit to S hedd Aquarium to import three beluga 

whales from Canada. On August 2,1989, PAWS 

filed suit challenging the permit and seeking to 
re turn the two beluga whales that had already been to consider alternatives to the importation that 

imported to their original habitat, and to block the could reduce the envinonmental impact of the perimportation of'the third whale. PAWS alleged that mit activities, and because NOAA had failed to 

issuance of the permit was illegal under NEPA provide a reasoned explanation for its decision not 

because NOA A had not prepared an EIS or an EA to prepare an EIS or EL4 prior to issuing the permit. 

on the proposed action; because NOAA had failed As of the end of 1989, this lawsuit was still active. 

1989 MbPA Annu ;a1 Report 
TABLE 10 - Synopsis qf Permit Applications, April 1,1988 to December 31,1989 

- .- - 

Scientific 

Research 

Scientific Public & Public 

- .- Research Display Display Totsh; - 

Applications Submitted: 47 

Number of Animals 

Requested (Total) 81 103 

Of These: 

Taken and Kept Alive 0 

Taken and Released 15870 

S trandedExchanged 1 

Irnported 0 

Hmssed 65232 

Action Taken on Applications: 

hlumber Forwarded to Marine 

Mammal Commission 37 

Number Reviewed by Marine 

Mammal Commission 37 

Number Withdrawn 3 

Number Returned due to Insufficient or Inappropriate Submittal 8 

Number Denied 0 

Number Approved 32 

Number Pending 4 

Number of Animals 

Approved (Total) 57700 

Of These: 

Taken and Kept Alive 0 

Taken and Released 15830 

StrandedjExchanged 0 

Imported 0 

Hbssed 4 1870 

1 11989 MMPA Annual Report 
Table 11 - Cetaceans Requesteld in Permit Applications April 1,1988 - December 31,1989 

- - - 

Taken1 

'Taken Imported Killed Tagged or Found 

by and Kept in Taken and Dead/ 

Killing Alive Captivity Released Stranded Total 

Atlantic bottlenose dolphin 

B aird's beaked whale 

Beaked wh1a1e:s 

Blue whale 

Bottlenose dolphins 

Bottlenose whales 

Bowhead whale 

Bryde's wh~alc: 

Burmeiste~'~ porpoise 

Common dolphin 

Cuvier's bc &ed whale 

Dusky dolphin 

Dwarf sperm whale 

False killer whale 

Fin whale, finback 

Fraser's (Siuawak) dolphin 

Gray whale 

Gray's beaked whale 

Harbor porpoise 

Hubbs' beaked whale 

Humpback whale 

Killer whale 

Long-finned pilot whale 

Melon-headed whale, electra 

Minke whale 

Pacific wh~lte-sided dolphin 

Pygmy killer whale 

Pygmy sperm whale 

Risso's dolphin, grampus 

Rough-tw~thed dolphin 

Sei whale 

Short-finncd pilot whale 

Southern right whale 

Sperm whale 

Spinner dolphin 

Spolted dolphin 

Striped dolphin, streaker 

Unspecified toothed whales 

1980 MMPA Annual Rep011 
Table 12 - Cetaceans Authorized in Permit Applications April 1,1988 - December 31,1989 

Taken1 

'Taken Imported Killed Tagged or Found 

by and Kept in Taken and Dead 

Killing Alive Captivity Released Stranded Total -- 

Atlantic bottlenose dolphin 

Baird's beaked whale 

Beaked whales 

Blue whale 

Bottlenose dolphins 

Bottlenose whales 

Bryde's whale 

Burmeister's porpoise 

Common dolphin 

Cuvier's beaked whale 

Dusky dolphin 

Dwarf sperm whale 

False killer whale 

Fin whale, finback 

Fraser's (Sarawak) dolphin 

Gray's beaked whale 

Harbor porpoise 

Hubbs' beaked whale 

Killer whale 

Long-finnned pilot whale 

Melon-headed whale, electra 

Minke whale 

Pacific white-sided dolphin 

Pygmy killer whale 

Pygmy sperm whale 

Risso's dolphin, grampus 

Rough-toother dolphin 

Sei whale 

Short-finned pilot whale 

Southern right whale 

Sperm whalle 

Spinner dolphin 

Spotted dollphin 

Striped dolphin, streaker 

Unspecified toothed whales 

Totals 0 14 0 5700 0 5714 

I 1989 MMPA A~~ual Report 
- 

Table 13 - Pinnipeds Requested in Permit Applications April 1,1988 - December 31,1989 .- - 

Taken/ 

Tatken Imported Killed Tagged or Found 

by and Kept in Taken and Dead/ 

Killing Alive Captivity Released Stranded Total 

California sea lion 

Crabeater seal 

Harbor seal 

Harp seal, Greenland seal 

Leopard seal 

Northern elephant seal 

Northern fur seal 

Pacific harbor seal 

Ribbon seal 

Ross !seal 

South American sea lion 

Southern elephant seal 

Weddell seal 

Table 14 - Pinnipeds Autli~orized in Permit Applications April 1,1988 - December 31,1989 

Taken/ 

Taken Imported Killed Tagged or Found 

by and Kept in Taken and Dead/ 

Killing Alive Captivity Released Stranded Total 

- .- 

Califc~rnia sea lion 10 0 0 0 12 12 

Crabeater seal 10 0 0 1 20 0 120 

Leopard seal 10 0 0 120 0 120 

Northern elephant seal 0 0 0 10150 0 10150 

Northern fur seal 10 0 0 150 0 150 

Pacific harbor seal 10 0 0 300 0 300 

Ross seal 10 0 0 120 0 120 

South American sea lion $0 2 0 0 0 2 

Southern elephant seal 10 0 0 120 0 120 

Weddell seal 10 0 0 4600 0 4600 

- .- - 

Totals 10 2 0 15680 12 15694 

.- - 

1989 MPA,. Annual Report 
Ta,ble 15 - Summary of Permits Issued April 1,1988 - December 31,1989' 

Authorizing Permanent Removal from the Wild 

Permits Permits Animals Animals Take 

Species Issued Current Authorized Taken Remaining 

Atlantic bottlenose dolplhin 5 5 4 1 20 2 1 

False killer whale 3 3 16 2 14 

Killer whale 1 1 1 1 0 

Pacific white-sided dolphin 1 1 10 5 5 

Rough-toothed dolphin 1 1 4 0 4 

Hawaiian monk seal 1 1 16 0 16 

South American sea lion 

- 

1 1 2 2 .- -- 

0 

I 198'9 MMPA Annual Report 
- Pacific 

North South 

Asia Alaska America America 

Atlantic 

North South 

America Europe Africa America 

Species Name Estimated 

Order: Cetacea World 

Suborder: Mpteceti Total 

i 

Southern Oceans 

New SubZealand Australia Antarctic Antarctic 

I Family: Eschrichtiidae 

Gray Whale 21,113 

(Eschrichrius robustus) 

Family: Balaenopteridae 

Minke Whale 315,8001 

Sei Whale 25,110 

(Balamoptera borealis) -7- Incomplete 

Fin Whale 105,2001 7- Incomplete I (Balaemprm physaLus) 121,900 

Incomplete 

I Humpback Whale 

(Me~aprera mvaeanfliae) 

Incomplete I 

Family: Balaenidae 

Right Whale 3,050/ 

(Balam glacialis) 3,250 

Bowhead Whale >7,800 

(Balaena mysticerus) 

Suborder: Odontoceti 

Family: Delphinidae 

Atlantic white-sided dolphin No data 

(Lanenorhvnchus acum) 

Incomplete + lncomplete 

1 Pacific white-sided dolphin No data 

(Lagenorhpchus obliquidens) 

I Northern right whale dolphin No data 

ww bores") 1 Southern right whale dolphin No data 

(L~rrsodelpitis peronii) 

Rirso3r dolphin No data 

Melon-headed whale No data 

3 Pygmy killer whale No data 

(Ferera attenuara) 

Incomplete 

Incomplete t Incomplete 

Incomplete I 

Incomplete I 
Table 16 - Pooulation Estimates: Cetacea (Cont'd) 

Estimated 

World 

Total 

Comparison 

of Population 

~ata' 

Circumpolar 

- Pacific 

North South 

Asia Alaska America America 

- Atlantic Southern Oceans 

North South New SubAmerica Europe Africa America Zealand Australia Antarctic Antarctic 

Family: Deiphinidae (wnt'd) 

False killer whale 

pxuhrca croaidms) 

6,? 

# Long-finned pilot whale No data 

(Globicephala rnelaena) 

Incomplete 

Short-finned p~lot whale No data 

filler whale No data !.%,-,z:, ? nr,-,7 ! i - -- -- ---I 

Rough-toothed doiphm NO data 

Bottlenose dolphm No data 

lTmops mutcancrj 

Incomplete I 

Inwmplete 

incompiete I 

Inwmplete 

I Spinner dolphin No data 

(Stenella longirostris) 

Spotted dolphin No data 

(Stenella attenuata) 

Incomplete 

I Incomplete + 2.2 Million 

I Atlantic spotted dolphin 

(Stenella pla,qiodon) 

No data Inwmplete 

Striped dolphin 

(Stenella coeruleoalSa) 

No data Incomplete + 2.3 Million 

I Common dolphin 

(Delphhinus delphis) 

No data Incomplete I 

Fraser's dolphin No data 

(LapdeIphis hosei) 

Family: Phocoenidae 

Harbor porpoise No data 

(Phocoena phocoenaj 

Dsii's porpoise 2,150,000 

(Plwcoenoides daNi) 

Farn~ly: Monodontidar 

Beluga, I'cluka, white whale 62,0001 

(Ueipllmaptencs leucas) 88,000 

Fianvhal 30,000 

(Mortndon monoceros) 

Incomplete 

Inwmplete -IComplete i 

Incomplete 
V\ Table 16 - Population Estimates: Cetacea (Cont'd) CC I I I 

I Species Name 

Estimated Comparison 

World of Population CircumTotal / ~ata' 1 polar 

bamlly: rhyseteridae 

Sperm Whale I- (Physerer catodon) . 

Pygmy spe~m wha!e No data I !nccq!e!e I I 

'~est = the most comprehensive estimates throughout the range of the species. 

Complete = good population estimates throughout the range of the species. 

Incomplete = population estimates only in parts of the range of the species. 1 % = although a popuiation occurs in this area, the nu are either unknown or the data are not available. 

- Pacific Atlantic 

North South North I - 

South 

Asia Alaska America America America Europe Africa America 

(Kogia breviceps) 

Dwarf sperm whale No data 

Family: Ziphiidae 

Southern Oceans 

New SubZealand Australia Antarctic Antarctic 

Incomplete 

Baird's beaked whale No data 1 inwmpiete j 

(Berardius bairdii) 1 I 
Table 17 - Population Estimates: Pinnipedia 

Species Name Estimated 

World 

Suborder: Pinnipedia Total 

Family: Otariidae 

California sea lion 177,000 

(Zalophus cal$omianus) M,OOO 

Northern sea lion 

(Eurneropius jubams) 

South American sea lion 273,000 

(Orana flavcscens) 

Australian sea lion 

(Neophoca cinmea) 3,000 

Honker's (N* Ze2!:nrl\ re1 linn 1 -- 6,- 

Alaska or Northern fur seal 1,151,000 

(Callorhinus ursinus) 

Comparison 

of Population 

~ata' 

Pacific 

Circum- Nonh South 

Southern Oceans 

New SubZealand Australia Antarctic Antarctic 

Atlantic 

North South 

America Europe Africa America 

Complete 

3,000 53,000 10,000 

(incl. CAN) 

Complete 

Complete 

Complete 

Best 

Guadalupe fur seal 1,600 

(Arctocephalus tomendi) 

Juan Fenanda fur seal 7051 

(Arctocephalus philippii) 750 

Galapagos fur seal 1,0001 

(Arctocephalus galapagoemis) 5,000 

South American fur seal 346,000 

(Arctocephalus australis) 

Complete 

Complete 

Incomplete 

Incomplete 

Cape (South African) and 

Australian fur seals 

(Arctocephalus pusillus) 

Complete 

I New Zealand fur seal 

j (Arctocephalus forsten') 

Complete 

Antarctic (Kerguelen) fur seal 1,530,000 

(Arcrocephalus gazella) 

- P*lhant.rrtir - - - . . . .. . - . . - fur seal * 270,000 

(Arctocepltalus tropicalis) 

Family: Phocidae 

Largha seal -. 335,0001 I. .I. . . . I L .' ["'"i" IUI~'LUj . co. .fi..a.a 9JV.VW 

Harbor (Common) seal 390,0001 

(Phoca viiulina) 413,000 

Complete 

Complete 

Incomplete 

Incomplete 
Table 17 - Population Estimates: Pinnipedia (Cont'd) 

Estimated 

Wodd 

Total 

Comparison 

of Population 

~ata' 

Circumpolar 

- Pacific 

North South 

Asia Alaska America America 

Atlantic 

North South 

America Europe Africa America 

Southern Oceans 

New Sub- I 

Species Name Zealand Australia Antarctic Antarctic 

I Famiiy Pnociaae (cont'a) 

Ringed seal 

(Phoca (=pwa) hispi&) 

617 Million Beat 617 

Million 

Baikal seal 

(Phoca sibirica) 

Complete 

- 

Caspian seal 500,0001 

(Phoca cqica) @Q,000 

Harp seal 1,650,0001 

lPhoca _dondico! ?2!9Q 

- 

Complete 

Complete 

Ribbon seal 200,0001 Complete ~,000/ 

(Pka (=himiopka) fmiam) 250,000 250,000 

Gray seal 101,0001 Complete 24,000 

(Haliochoenu ayppcs) 133,000 -- - -- - 

Bearded seal >500,000 Incomplete >500,000 

(Elignalhur bahlrur) 

Hooded seal 500,0001 Complete 500,0001 

(CLsr0ph~ 6'w000 600,000 

Meditmnean monk seal 5001 I Best 

(Monachus monachus) 1.500 

Caribbean monk seal 

(Monachuc mpicalis) 

Eninct or Best 

near extinct I 

I I I --- 

Hawaiian monk seai 5001 ' Complete 5001 

(Monachw schauhlandi) 1500 lJ00 

Soiiitre~i ckphani wi i93,w7 Zompiere 7,000 38,000 148,000 

(Mirounga Ieonina) 

Northern elephant seal 100,000 Best 100,000 

(Muounga angunirosaic) 

15,000,000 Best 15,000,000 

Ross seal 

l~z~tnnhoc~ raxzii) 

I I I 

Leopard seal 500,000 Complete 

(Hydrurga leptonyr) 

Weddell seal 750,000 Complete 

(Leptonychotes weddelli) 
1989 MMPA An~nual Report * u.s. ti.P.0. :19'92-313-153:60238