114 



Mr. Butler. Fund for animals is one of those that the environ- 

 mental defense fund group represents. 



Mr. Leggett. Who do you represent, Bud? 



Mr. Fensterwald. Committee for Humane Legislation and 

 Friends of Animals. 



Mr. Leggett. Do you represent the Committee for Humane Legis- 

 lation or Friends of Animals? 



Mr. Butler. Neither one. 



Mr. Leggett. So we have a mutually exclusive situation here. 



Mr. Butler. Today mv statement is being made only on behalf 

 of EDF, Defendants of Wildlife, Sierra Club and the National Au- 

 dubon Society. All of them are EOF coalition members before the 

 courts and the administrative agency. But there are many other 

 groups for which I am not speaking today that EOF is representing 

 in both the courts and before the administrative agency. In no case 

 do we represent the two groups that are represented by Mr. Fen- 

 sterwald. 



Mr. Leggett. Now, with respect to the groups represented by Col- 

 onel Kaufman? 



Mr. Butler. We represent all of them. 



Mr. Leggett. You represent all of those ? 



Mr. Butler. Yes. 



Mr. Leggett. Very good. 



Your statement, Mr. Butler, will appear in the record as though 

 fully delivered, and you can extemporize as you wish. 



[The statement follows :] 



Statement of William A. Butler, General Counsel, Environmental De- 

 fense Fund on Behalf of EDF, The Sierra Club, Defenders of Wild- 

 life and National Audubon Society 



The current legal confusion concerning the tuna /porpoise problem is decep- 

 tive. It would admittedly appear at first glance that we are no closer to a 

 solution to this vexing problem than we were last year at this time. Litiga- 

 tion is proceeding in two judicial circuits; administratively the National 

 Marine Fisheries Service has not yet issued its final 1977 porpoise regulation?, 

 which for procedural reasons will not go into effect in any event until April ; 

 and efforts are again being made by the industry to capitalize on the situation 

 bv proposing weakening amendments to the Marine Mammal Protection Act. 

 ' However, let us look carefully at the facts. In our opinion, the most salient 

 point to be made in considering amendments to the Act is as follows: The 

 Act is working as it is presently constructed. To amend it now would be a 

 mistake. It is being applied successfully in such cases as Alaskan Marine 

 Mammals, Fouke Fur Company, Southern Sea Otters, and now even Tuna/ 

 Porpoise. Problems which have arisen with regard to tuna /porpoise are not 

 within the Act, but rather with the original recalcitrance and subsequent 

 leisurely implementation of the Act's administrative requirements by the 

 National Marine Fisheries Service in 1976. 



Two examples of immediate importance spring to mind: (1) Last May 

 during U.S. District Court argument before Judge Richey, the government 

 indicated that it would take as long as seven years to determine optimum 

 sustainable population (OSP) levels for the species of porpoise involved in 

 the U.S. yellowfin tuna fishery. Prompted by Judge Ridley's decision that such 

 levels must be determined under the Act before a permit can be issued, NMFS 

 somehow managed to condense that seven-year effort into four days in July, 

 providing us in early September with the information needed to begin the 

 regulatory process which will eventually culminate in final regulations for 

 1977, but"; (2) NMFS failed to begin the hearing process until mid-November, 



