141 



put a clearer definition in the act as to what level you have to get 

 back to before you could start killing again, because, otherwise, we 

 will get into another 5 or 10-year argument as to what the Congress 

 had in mind. 



Mr. Butler. If I could give a brief answer for the groups that I 

 represent, or that I am speaking for here today. 



I do not think they would be satisfied, even if they could be shown 

 that all porpoises were above the OSP level, for killing to continue 

 at its presently existing level. 



The reason for that is as follows : There are two goals in the act. 

 One is the scientific goal of maintaining OSP; the other is the 

 ethical goal of approaching a zero kill. 



The zero kill goal connected with incidental taking. That is take 

 which is not intentional, which is not usable, which is purely gratui- 

 tous, and which results in enormous waste of a natural asset. 



Under no circumstances can such be tolerated over a long period 

 of alternatives are available — that sort of killing, I think, is gen- 

 erally abhorrent to everyone in this room. For that reason, regardless 

 of whether it is porpoise or seals caught in Alaska in the same wav, 

 if there are means to avoid that sort of incidental and useless kill- 

 ing, it seems to me the ethical goal is still to reduce taking to levels 

 approaching zero, and this is not inconsistent even if population 

 levels are at OSP. 



You have two mutually complementary goals in the act, The ethical 

 goal applies specifically to incidental, unintentional killing. 



Mr. Spexsley. Incidental taking is important, because it is some- 

 thing that can be avoided, but intentional taking is all right ethically? 



Mr. Butler. The argument for taking is far more persuasive if 



: there is a purpose and use for killing the mammal. If it is eaten or 



commercially utilized — if something of this nature can be manifestly 



shown about the specific use to which the animal is put, that is one 



thing, but just gratituous killing, incidental killing which can be 



demonstrated is available, I think is abhorrent to all of us. regard- 



! less of what the species of animal is that is being killed. The Con- 



' gress was groping with that particular thought in the Harris amend- 



; ment in the Senate to the act, the amendment we now know as the 



zero kill goal. 



I think it represents an important thought for Congress and the 

 public at large that gratuitous killing is abhorrent, particularly 

 when it is unnecessary. 



Mr. Leggett. I think the committee agrees with that position. I 

 think the wasting of an animal population is abhorrent, 



Mr. Fexsterwald. Might I add one more? 



Mr. Spexsley. I would like to get an answer from Mr. Fenster- 

 wald. 



Mr. Fexsterwald. I am going to try to answer it directly, if I can. 



My clients are opposed to setting on porpoises. If we go back to 

 methods which do not require nets to be put around porpoises, we 

 not only avoid the killing, we also avoid the harassment. 



I think that the methods which we used prior to 1958 give us a 

 reasonable supply of yellowfin. I think there are many, many other 

 types of tuna fish that are caught in addition to it and yellowfin can 

 be caught by other methods. 



