The Pall's Porpoise Issue 



Dall's porpoise ( Phocoenoides dalli ) become entangled 

 and die in the gill nets used by Japanese salmon fishermen 

 in the North Pacific Ocean. As a result of the renegotiation 

 of the International Convention for the High Seas Fisheries 

 of the North Pacific and amendments to the U.S. North 

 Pacific Fisheries Act implementing that Convention, 

 the Japanese are permitted to fish for salmon both within 

 and outside the U.S. 200-mile Fishery Conservation Zone. 

 This fishing is subject, among other things, to the 

 provisions of a Memorandum of Understanding between the 

 United States and Japan concerning coordinated research 

 efforts and, beginning 10 June 1981, to compliance with the 

 permit and other requirements of the Marine Mammal 

 Protection Act with respect to incidental taking of Dall's 

 porpoise and other marine mammals within the fishery zone. 

 As discussed in the Commission's previous Annual Reports, 

 on 15 May 1981 the National Marine Fisheries Service 

 published final regulations and issued a permit to Japanese 

 fishermen allowing them to incidentally take up to 5,500 

 Dall's porpoise, 450 northern fur seals, and 25 northern 

 sea lions each year during the 1981 through 1983 fishing 

 seasons. The permit required the Japanese fishermen to 

 accept U.S. Government observers onboard their fishing 

 vessels and to assist as requested in meeting the objectives 

 of the research program agreed to by the Governments of the 

 United States and Japan. 



Litigation 



On 6 July 1981, Friends of Animals filed suit against 

 the Government in the United States District Court for the 

 District of Columbia ( Friends of Animals v. Baldridge ) (sic) 

 challenging the regulations and permit which had been issued 

 on 15 May 1981. The plaintiffs alleged that the Government, 

 among other things, violated the requirements of the Marine 

 Mammal Protection Act that incidental take be reduced to 

 insignificant levels approaching a zero mortality and 

 serious injury rate and that the regulations be based upon 

 the best scientific evidence available so as to ensure that 

 the taking would not be to the disadvantage of the affected 

 populations. On 18 May 1982, the District Court issued a 

 memorandum opinion and order noting that although it was 

 concerned about the lack of empirical data underlying some 

 aspects of the regulations and permit and would not have 

 reached the same results as the agency did, the decision 

 was supported by substantial evidence and the court cannot 

 substitute its judgment for that of the agency. The court 

 granted the Government's motion for summary judgment and 

 dismissed the lawsuit. 



- 43 - 



