139 



Obviously, if you get into nomenclature, it would allow us to take 

 the optimum sustainable yield of porpoise, and nobody would be 

 happy with that, and we are not going to do that. 



1 do believe that we can reach the 10,000 number that Mr. Butler 

 talked about, but 1 do believe that we should do it with as little 

 confrontation as we can. keeping the wedge on the overall industry. 



Now, were I to offer an amendment which might offer or suggest, 

 with respect to environment and harassment as a violation of the 

 law. which T am pleased to do. I just do not think that, from what 

 I know, this committee probably would not pass. In fact. I think you 

 would get maybe no votes and maybe one. 



Where I would bring it up on the floor. T do not think it would be 

 many votes in support of it: but, again, what comes up would be 

 subject to an open rule. So you have got to barken back. 



I do not know how long you have been on board this overall 

 effort, or whether you were one of the original lobbyists for this 

 law. 



Mr. Fexsterwald. I was. 



Mr. Leggett. And I was a member of the committee when that 

 came up. and I know, as a member of the committee, we were con- 

 cerned that the tuna industry not be put out of business, but that 

 thev adopt new methods; and I think Mr. Dingell has made state- 

 ments in the Richey decision, and others, that seem to support that, 

 conclusion. We did not intend that purse seining would come to a 

 screeching halt at the end of 2 years. 



I am not satisfied with the take of porpoise of 120,000 at an 

 annual rate or with an Administrative Law Judge's decision of 

 05.000. and I would like to ^et formidably down to very low numbers 

 of porpoise, consistent with the objectives of the Act. 



I think there are ways to get down rhere, but T think we do have 

 to recognize that everybody slept on this law for two years, and 

 then, all of a sudden, we. as a result of some litigation, as a result 

 of action by this committee, we determined that we could move more 

 formidablv. 



We do have a spectrum of thought as to where we ought to be 



right now. 



The industry would like to go back to operations on the grace 

 period. You would like to go back to operations pre-1958, and Mr. 

 Butler wants the upbeat, we want to achieve a court solution on a 

 temporary basis, but a court solution is not possible on the question 

 of whether we want a congressional solution. 



So that is kind of where we are at. 



Mr. Anderson, do you have questions? 



Mr. Anderson. You said it very well. 



Mr. Leggett. Mr. Spensley? 



Mr. Spensley. I just want to ask one question of Mr. Fensterwald 

 who has lobbied for the legislation, one who certainly litigated it, 

 and knows the act quite well. 



Do you find an inconsistency in the Marine Mammal Act with 

 respect to one goal which was to return and maintain all mammals 

 at an optimum sustainable population and thereby imply a certain 

 take of that level and, on the other hand, in the case of incidental 



