APPENDIX III APPENDIX III 
price increases had helped to offset rising costs and de- 
Clining harvests. in 1975, however, the fleet’ seeateh 
brought lower prices and earnings suffered appreciably. 
NMFS estimated that all but the largest vessels were in a 
net loss financial position in 1975. 
The Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 established as 
a goal that the incidental marine mammal kill rate approach 
zero mortality; commercial fishermen were allowed 2 years 
to reduce mortality without penalties. NMFS, which has the 
responsibility for enforcing the act, permitted the tuna 
industry, in late 1974 to. continue purse Seining an order “ve 
further develop new fishing gear. NMFS engaged in research 
with industry in an attempt to design gear or techniques that 
would reduce the incidental killing. New gear and techniques 
were developed with resulting decreases in the incidental 
killing) Erom) overs 3007000. 4n, 1972, to 179),000.in 1973.4 and 
98,000 in 1974. However, when in 1975 the incidental kill- 
ing increased to 134,000, several environmental groups filed 
suits demanding purse seining be stopped. An official of 
the Marine Mammal Commission reported they requested NMFS 
set a maximum quota on the marine mammal kill for 1976 to 
return to the 1974 level or better. NMFS refused, however, 
to set a quota before the 1976 season. An NMFS official 
said they intended to set a quota in early 1976 if the num- 
ber was not reduced. But in May 1976 a U.S. Federal Dis- 
trict Court judge ruled that purse seining "on porpoise" 
for tuna violated the Marine Mammal Protection Act and 
ordered the U.S. tuna fishing industry to stop purse sein- 
ing for tuna. An NMFS official said that following an appeal 
Ol aehnem Dis taste sCouUmeuS HEU Ingn TOmtnew Lhload yCrraCunte ss COurat 
of Appeals, an indefinite stay was placed on the lower court's 
ruling, pending the Circuit Court's review and decision con- 
cerning the ruling. In the meantime, NMFS had placed a quota 
of 78,000 on the allowed incidental porpoise killing. 
We were told the effect of this court ruling is yet to 
be felt, but if unaltered, it will lower the domestic yellow- 
fin harvest. Both NMFS and tuna industry officials agreed 
that the killing of porpoise is an unavoidable element in 
the most efficient tuna catching technique currently employed 
by U.S. fishermen. 
According to NMFS, a bill (H.R. 13865) designed to over- 
turn the District Court's ruling was introduced on May 18, 
1976. This bill would allow the Department of Commerce 
unrestricted authority, after December 31, 1976, to establish 
regulations governing the killing of marine mammals. As of 
July 1976 the bill was pending before the House Committee 
for Merchant Marine and Fisheries. 
264 
