151 



Ms. Forkan. I think that is all I really have to say. 



As I said earlier, we have covered very technical things in previous 

 testimony. I just wanted to point out a few of the inconsistencies that 

 I keep seeing. We just want to stop the killing, and wish the indus- 

 try would try harder. 



Mr. Leggett. Let me ask just one question. 



What number of porpoise take are you going to call off the boy- 

 cott when it reaches that? 



Ms. Forkan. I think that is up to our members. We have had 

 encouraging letters saying they are getting letters back from the in- 

 dustry saying how hard they are working. So we will watch and see 

 just when it is honestly incidental. And I think there is such a place. 



Mr. Leggett. Very good. 



I think your testimony is very upbeat in spite of the fact that you 

 are very critical. Your statement will of course be placed in the 

 record. 



[The following was received for the record :] 



Statement of Patricia Forkan, Program Coordinator, the Humane Society 



of the United States 



Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify during these over- 

 sight hearings on the "tuna /porpoise" problem. I am Patricia Forkan, Pro- 

 gram Coordinator for The Human Society of the United States, a national, 

 non-profit organization dedicated to the relief of fear, pain, and suffering of 

 all animals. We are. with respect to staff, program, constituents, and members, 

 probably the largest animal welfare organization in the country. 



The HSUS has come before this subcommittee many times before today in 

 the hopes of getting down to the business of saving dolphins and porpoises 

 and enforcing the MMPA. During 1976 it was almost impossible to follow the 

 exhaustive administrative hearings, the myriad of court cases, the many media 

 going into lobbying, without wondering why in heavens name the tune in- 

 dustry doesn't use all that time, energy, and money to solve the "incidental 

 catch" problem once and for all? 



On one hand tuna companies are writing to the public saying how hard they 

 are trying, while on the other hand briefs are submitted to Administrative 

 Law Judge Frank W. Vanderheyden asking for 9S,000 porpoise as a quota for 

 1977 ... a number far exceeding the 78,000 quota for 1976. Contrary to all 

 scientific testimony they also asked for a quota on an aggregate basis rather 

 than on a species by species and stock by stock basis. They are willing to 

 turn away from evidence that shows the Easter spinner is depleted and ask 

 to continually kill that population. Apparently, they forget that the Act is 

 meant to protect marine mammals first. 



It is incredible to imagine that after all these hearings and court actions at 

 great cost to the American taxpayer that the industry would still fight the 

 notion of an enforcement program with observers on every boat. In fact, the 

 industry, again in its brief before Judge Vanderheyden, said they support only 

 a "scientific observer program" and oppose any observers for "enforcement 

 purposes." Is this the cooperation they refer to? 



Where is the cooperation? Is the dedicated vessel underway? We believe its 

 work will be crucial especially in solving some of the behavioral mysteries. 

 Has the fleet begun preparations to adopt porpoise rescue techniques found to 

 be so very effective on the Elizabeth C.J. ? What are they thinking about when 

 they threaten to leave the U.S. fleet . . . it's like the little boy who threatens 

 to take his football home if you don't play the same according to his rules. 



The public and our members are tired of the excuses and the footdragsing. 

 They want action . . . especially when they know a solution is near and is 

 possible if the fleet and its cantains really cared. When a goal is in si?ht . . . 

 the demands to reach it are only heightened. 



The fleet should begin with its own captains who have demonstrated the 

 inability or lack of interest in reducing porpoise mortality. The inept captain 



