10 



us from issuing a permit that would allow the incidental taking of 

 porpoise until the Secretary lias complied fully with the act and sub- 

 sequently issued new regulations; prohibited any incidental taking of 

 porpoise's until a valid permit is issued; and prohibited representa- 

 tives of the tuna industry from instituting any new litigation seeking 

 to allow the taking of porpoise. 



This past week we moved the California District Court to dissolve 

 its Order, but our motion was denied. We further moved to stay en- 

 forcement of the order pending appeal. This also was denied. We have 

 appealed both rulings to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth 

 Circuit. Earlier this week we submitted to the Court of Appeals for 

 the District of Columbia Circuit our plan indicating how we intend 

 to enforce the act with respect to the incidental take of porpoise. 



As I mentioned earlier, we expect to have the revised regulations 

 promulgated this month— in the next few days, hopefully. These 

 regulations will contain a quota on the number of porpoises which 

 can be taken during the 1977 season. Mr. Chairman, we are aware of 

 the urgency to move quickly. Within the statutory requirements for 

 public review and comment we hope to issue a general permit and 

 certificates of inclusion under that permit in April. However, that 

 timetable is not totallv predictable because the Court of Appeals for 

 the District of Columbia Circuit has indicated that it will review the 

 background data and evidence developed with regard to any applica- 

 tion for a permit. Pending the issuance of the new permit, no U.S. 

 tuna boats are allowed to take any porpoise incidental to yellowfin 

 tuna fishing, and to the best of our knowledge, none are. 



Mr. Chairman, despite the present conflict in the courts, we hope 

 that no one will overlook the basic fact that, since 1972, the Govern- 

 ment and the tuna industry have made considerable progress in re- 

 ducing the incidental take of porpoise by U.S. fishermen. There has 

 been a substantial amount of money and effort expended on research 

 by all the parties involved. New fishing methods and technologies 

 have been developed. In 1972 the take was over 300,000 animals. In 

 1976, based on the data we have been able to develop so far, we esti- 

 mate that the incidental kill was 100,000 animals. While it is true that 

 last year's kill represents a reduction from earlier years, obviously 

 further improvement is needed. We believe that the future will see a 

 continued substantial reduction in death and injury to porpoises. 

 This is not just unfounded optimism but a reasonable expectation 

 based on our new regulations and gear and technical developments. 

 We believe the regulations for the 1977 season will protect all species 

 and assure that any stock below optimum sustainable population will 

 increase in abundance. As we have said repeatedly over the last sev- 

 eral years, there is no easy answer to this problem, but there is reason 

 for expecting steady progress toward a solution. 



We find ourselves today in a most difficult situation, Mr. Chairman. 

 We endorse the desire of those individuals who believe that porpoises 

 should be protected. We also believe that the interests of both the peo- 

 ple of the United States and the porpoises are best served^if the U.S. 

 tuna fishing industry continues to operate under the U.S. flag. We 

 believe our revised regulations will meet both objectives. 



