200 



flexible one and price dependent, nonetheless, the amount of addi- 

 tional cbsl for canned tnnafish which would be attributable to the 

 cost for observers would be miniscule when compared with all the 

 many factors which go into the cost of a can of tnnafish. 



I think ultimately the consumer should pay and not the Govern- 

 ment or industry — the consumer of tnnafish should pay because he 

 is the one who is ultimately benefitted. 



Mr. Rogers. Thank- you. 



Mr. Leggett. Thank you, Mr. Kogers. 



Mr. Forsythe? 



Mr. Forsythe. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. 



Thank yon. Mr. Butler. Your testimony has been helpful. I would 

 really like to pro to one point. It is a point which bothers me. as 

 we try to find a way to come out of a morass of problem?, and this 

 is on page two, under your item 2: you said that you believe that 

 the optimum sustainable population to be the pre-exploitation popu- 

 lation levels themselves. 



Mr. Butler. We have chosen to maintain that as our theoretical, 

 le^al. and scientific optimal position. However, since the NMFS 

 adjudicatory hearings have commenced, w T e have talked in terms of 

 the Government's definition of OSP as a 50-70% range of pre- 

 exploitation populations, without necessarily conceding our theoreti- 

 cal view. We are talking the same terms as the government in terms 

 of optimum sustainable population constituting a range of preexploi- 

 tation population, so we hope you will permit us the facesaving de- 

 vice of suggesting there is a difference between what one theoretically 

 believes and what one practically has to deal with. I suppose this 

 committee itself faces such ideological compromises all the time. 



Mr. Forsythe. Thank you, Mr. Butler, you have shown a very 

 reasonable altitude to find a way to keep this from being disastrous 

 to an industry, and to a food supply which I think is important. For 

 that I compliment you. 



The problem is ultimately for the committee. 



Mr. Leggett. Mr. Anderson. 



Mr. Anderson. Could you define a little bit more the eastern spin- 

 ner porpoise as being relatively close to shore or in shore? What 

 do you mean by that in miles ? 



Mr. Butler. I am sorry, I did not bring the relevant report with 

 me. The Southwest Fisheries Service has a report, the last pages of 

 which show the geographical depictions on the map of where these 

 populations exist : where the eastern spinner exists, where the off- 

 shore spotted exists, and where the white bellied spinner exists. 



In fact, some unbeknownst benefactor or benefactoress has just 

 put copies of these maps in my hands, and with your permission, I 

 will approach you and show you what I mean. 



Mr. Anderson. In miles. Can you tell us, in shore, is a mile ? Ten 

 miles? Thirty miles? 



Mr. Butler. I am not competent to make those judgments at this 

 moment, judging by the scale on the map that I have. 



Mr. Anderson. The way you word it is that this is very easy to see 

 and all you have to do is look at it- 

 Mr. Legoett. Why don't you show the graph to the Chair and 

 let me interpret it. 



