194 



Mr. Lwxn ii'. Christine, would you want to join theml 

 Mrs Stevens. 1 wanl to In- at the end. t . 



M,. Leooett. All right. I would ask Mr. Fensterwald to join lum 

 if I thought it would be right. 

 [The following was received for the record:] 



STATKMJSNl OP WDXIAM A. BUTLEB, Genebax COUNSEL, Environment m. Db- 

 mn.-i. Fund ok Behalf of EDF, The Siebba Club, Defendebs or Wu.u- 



| 11 i:, N WTIOS ■>■ Arm BON SOCIETY 



Natlonal Marine Fisheries Service Director Schoning's February 24 final 

 determination on 1977 regulations to govern Incidental lake of porpoise by 

 tuna fishermen was a split decision. It was not a victory for environmental- 

 ists although we will try to live with it. Neither was it a defeat for the 

 industry, which nonetheless claims it cannot live with it. a contention patently 

 false. The decision certainly should not occasion amendment of the Marine 

 Mammal Protection Act. 



As we expressed In our February 17 testimony before this committee, we 

 believe that NMFS misjudgments and lassitude in 1970 have been the major 

 cause of current perturbations adversely affecting the interests of both envi- 

 ronmentalists and the industry. Nonetheless we are willing to look ahead, not 

 back, in a spirit of constructive conciliation. We would be remiss, bovver, if 

 we did not take this opportunity to detail for the committee the basis for 

 some of our unhappiness with Director Schoning's February 24 determination, 

 since the industry is attempting to make it appear it was the sole, or at least 

 major, loser in that decision. 



Our dissatisfactions with the decision include the following: 



(1) The 59.000 porpoise quota is still too high: 



(2) OSP is defined as a range between f>0-70 percent of pre-exploitation 

 population levels, whereas we believe OSP to be the pre-exploitation popula- 

 tion levels themselves ; 



(3) Provision is made for observers only while the quota is not yet met — ■ 

 after the quota is met observers are to be returned to port despite their 

 obvious continued usefulness for compliance and scientific observation pur- 

 poses : 



1 4) At-sea proficiency tests are not required of skippers before receiving 

 certificates of inclusion ; 



(5) Having observers on 100 percent of the trips is not required: 



(6) No provision is made for increased U.S. pressure on the IATTC to set 

 up an international observer program; 



(7) No guidelines are offered skippers on conditions of wind, sea, and dark- 

 ness under which not to set ; 



(8) The import provisions do not require foreign governments to describe 

 recent enforcement efforts of whatever laws they have allegedly in effect 

 protecting marine mammals; and 



(9) The import provisions fail to define what is meant by the power given 

 the NMFS Director to permit imports from foreign countries which in his 

 opinion do not have an "incidental mortality and serious injury rate in excess 

 of that which results from fishing operations under these regulations." 



(10) We are also unable to comprehend how last year's kill (until No- 

 vember 11) could have been 104,000, as is now estimated by NMFS, when the 

 1976 quota was 7S,000, even recognizing litigation prolonged the season three 

 weeks. Nor do we understand how NMFS contemplates preventing such over- 

 Shooting of the mark in 1977. 



In short, we have much of which to complain, yet adhere to our position 

 before this committee February 17 that amendment of the Marine Mammal 

 Protection Act is unnecessary. 



The industry does not feel so constrained : it combines loud and lusty com- 

 plaints about the 1977 regulations with frantic appeals for legislative relief. 

 lis claims of Irreparable injury are grossly exaggerated. 



J. The proscription on taking Eastern Spinner Porpoise. 



The industry asserts that the ban on taking of Eastern Spinner Porpoise 

 (because found by the NMFS to be depleted) prevents fishing on mixed 



