201 



In sort, the U.S. tuna industry is troubled financially, and is 

 ripe for an economic shake out completely unrelated to the porpoise 

 question. There is no reason to make the porpoise the scape goat for 

 investor miscalculations in the industry. 



4. Taking of porpoise before April 



The industry complains that whatever the likely ultimate effect of 

 XMFS Director's regulations, the fleet cannot gain any benefits from 

 them for at least the -30 days prescribed by law before they go into 

 effect. While this may be true, and I would like to make some com- 

 ments about this after I finish the statement, it overlooks the fact 

 that most of the fleet would have spent part of this period in port 

 anyway waiting to qualify for the "free trip." 



It also overlooks the fact that the question of interim relief is cur- 

 rently pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of 

 Columbia, where the industry is being joined by NMFS and most 

 of our environmental groups in its request that some porpoise fishing 

 be permitted, to count toward the annual quota, prior to the 1977 

 regulations and permits taking effect. 



While the interim relief requested still would not permit taking 

 of spinner porpoise, it would permit setting on other species, thereby 

 improving the industry's capability for the next -1 to 5 weeks. Off- 

 shore spotted porpoise, the species that "carries" the tuna and is 

 primarily set upon, would be available. 



There is no way of knowing when and what the court of appeals 

 will rule, but it is entirely conceivable it will favor interim relief 

 now that the administrative decision is final, and the jurisdictional 

 squabble between it and the U.S. District Court for the Southern 

 District of California-San Diego is settled. 



In summary, neither environmentalists nor the industry are en- 

 tirely happy with the XMFS decision, either its substance or timing. 

 The difference is that we are prepared to accept the results in a spirit 

 of compromise, whereas the industry's reaction continues to be one 

 of truculent obduracy. 



The Marine Mammal Protection Act was passed in 1972. Since that 

 time the U.S. fleet has killed nearly 800,000 porpoise. Since 1974 

 when the industry became subject to the Act and the fleet's 2-year 

 grace period expired, there has been little evidence of industry com- 

 pliance with the act's "immediate goal that the incidental kill or inci- 

 dental serious injury of marine mammals permitted in the course of 

 commercial fishing operations be reduced to insignificant levels 

 approaching a zero mortality and serious injury rate." 



XMFS annual mortality figures speak for themselves : 1974, 99,000 ; 

 1975. 135,000; 1976, 104,000 in 10 months, an annual rate of 130,000. 

 Killing has plateaued at annual levels of over 100,000. 



Five years after the act was passed XMFS has finally gotten 

 serious about preventing this carnage. We are willing to curb our 

 impatience with what we see as a continued 1977 go-slow Govern- 

 ment policy on enforcing the zero kill goal of the act because we feel 

 solutions, at least partial ones, are now at hand, and we do not wish 

 either to hazard loss of progress to date or to cause the industry 

 true economic hardship. 



