118 



tional sections of the MM PA are being implemented by the respon- 

 sible agencies. 



The present spate of litigation concerning the lack of porpoise 

 regulations for the first 4 months of 1977 is the aftermath of serious 

 errors of judgment made by NMFS during 1976. 



This situation need never again occur, and, in any event, cannot 

 be eliminated by legislative amendment. Now that the NMFS has 

 shown itself willing to implement the existing act with some imagi- 

 nation and enthusiasm, it would be tragic to slow momentum again 

 with changes in the rules. 



The effect of the act upon the tuna industry has not been severe 

 in the past, is not now, and need not be in the future. 



Almost all environmental groups concerned with this problem, cer- 

 tainly the ones the Environmental Defense Fund represents, have 

 accommodated their positions in both the recent administration hear- 

 ings and court litigation to the interests of the other parties, includ- 

 ing the economic interests of the industry. To undermine by weaken- 

 ing amendments progress made to date would have the ironic effect 

 of reducing current incentives to solve this problem just when co- 

 operative solutions appear to be at hand. 



It strikes me that 1977 is a critical year on the basis of the admin- 

 istrative hearings in which we recently participated. It seems to me 

 that gear technology and the fishing techniques are already at hand 

 substantially to reduce the take of porpoise. The real question is: 

 Can this gear be acquired and put on board, and can the techniques 

 be learned by the skippers, and can the industry or the Government 

 remove those few 14-equipped boats and/or relatively incompetent 

 skippers that are ballooning the take? 



If these things can be done, it seems to me that there would be a 

 dramatic reduction in taking of porpoise, and it would be clear to 

 everyone that there has been sufficient improvement so that the act 

 need not be amended. 



There are just a few items that I have heard through a day of 

 sitting here listening to testimony that I want to address myself to 

 ever so briefly. 



First of all, I think it is important that we recognize that while 

 there has been some improvement in the take of porpoise per set. 

 that since 1974 when the act first applied to the tuna industry, we 

 have had annual takes of 99,000 in 1974, 135,000 in 1975, and last 

 year's take for 10 months was 104,000, which is an annual rate of 

 130,000. 



Now, that is a plateau of well over 100,000 a year, and in fact 

 shows no discernible downward trend at all to me. 



There is plenty of room for improvement here, and last year those 

 20 boats I was talking about have shown that it can be done. 



I would look for dramatic improvements this year under the 

 present act. 



There are some other facts I think that the Chair might have mis- 

 interpreted from earlier testimony. 



I heard the Chair say, I believe, that something like 50 percent of 

 the domestic consumption of tuna is caught on porpoise. The figures 

 from the administrative hearings in the sworn testimony for 1975, 



