immediate compliance with this demand will moan destruction of the 

 domestic industry. The industry adds that if it must shut down, many 

 tens of thousands of persons will lose their jobs. Some are directly em- 

 ployed by the fishing industry: others are employed in processing and 

 distributing the tuna caught by the industry, and still others are em- 

 ployed in service industries. 



And the American consuming public will also suffer. 



The response of conservationist groups has been "so be it" that 



the dolphin population is too important to be sacrificed for the sake 

 of tuna fishing. And so battle lines have been drawn, and we are asked 

 to choose between the protection of the dolphin and protection of the 

 tuna fishing industry. 



But must we choose between one or the other ? 



My present view is that the battle lines are overdrawn — that there 

 may be a way of resolving the conflict without having to choose be- 

 tween destruction of the, dolphin population and destruction of the 

 tuna fishing industry. I do not have a ready prescription. That will 

 depend to a considerable extent on the factual picture that I hope this 

 hearing will portray. 



We read from time to time, for example, that the industry is devel- 

 oping neAv gear and new techniques so that, it may catch yellowfin 

 tuna without incidental killing of the dolphin. How effective are the 

 gear and techniques? Are they still experimental, or are they fully 

 developed? And are they economically feasible? 



What of the threat to the dolphin population? What has been the 

 rate of incidental killing since enactment of the Marine Mammal 

 Protection Act of 1972 ? 



I will not review the legal situation. Congressman Leggett has laid 

 that out clearly. 



The conflict between the Federal courts in the District of Columbia 

 and California can be resolved through the legal process. But — if it 

 is feasible — the quickest solution would be an administrative one — 

 through the issuance of new and valid regulations and permits by the 

 Secretary of Commerce. It is now incumbent upon the Secretary to 

 act as speedily as possible or to tell us why she cannot act. 



Hopefully, in the process, the Secretary will provide answers to 

 many of the questions I have raised. These answers are a necessary 

 prelude to meaningful congressional review. 



In closing, let me affirm that I endorse fully the basic intent of the 

 Marine Mammal Protection Act — that the Nation's primary objective 

 should be to protect marine mammals such as dolphins because of 

 their importance to the marine ecosystems in which they function, 

 and because of their importance to mankind generally. 



But I think we all recognize that we also have an obligation to our 

 domestic tuna fishing industry — to provide a climate in which it can 

 function, flourish, and expand. And provided that we do so consistent 

 with the spirit and intent of the Marine Mammal Protection Act, we 

 should search for ways of meeting this obligation. 



The answer may lie in modern technology, or it may lie in a regula- 

 tory regime. Or it may lie in an amendment of the act itself — not 

 amendment of the primary objective and the general spirit of the act, 

 but of its working definitions and procedures. Or it may lie in some 

 combination of all three. 



