266 



commercial fishing technology, which does not compare with U.S. 



standards. . ■ 



So it might be fish and there might be other kinds of marine 

 mammals. It would apply to all commercial fishing operations. 



Mr. Legoett. What other kinds of incidental takes are there? 



Mr. Fenstbrwald. The present regulations have a large section on 

 fishing in South Africa 



Mr. Lkggett. I do not think you could apply this to, say, 

 salmon and say because you happen to catch a walrus in your salmon 

 nets, that that would be a violation. 



Mr. Hodges. Mr. Leggett, that is precisely the point. The question 

 is whether the act should be construed to create a banning of all 

 fish. 



Mr. Leggett. I think we ought to ban all fish and all products- 

 Mr. Eisenbud ? . . 



Mr. Eisenbud. Mr. Leggett, I do not wish to ask permission to 

 delay this any further, but I wonder if you would hold the record 

 open on that point, to allow opportunity for some submission of 

 some other views? 



Mr. Leggett. Very good. We would be glad to have all the lawyers 

 in this room brief this matter, and it will be included in our record 

 as appropriate appendices. 



All right, we have solved this problem for today, and it has been 

 a very interesting hearing. 



I think we have all learned something. 



Thank you very much. 



[The following was submitted for inclusion in the printed 



record :] 



National Wildlife Federation, 

 Washington, D.C., March 11, 1911. 

 Hon. Robert L. Leggett, 



Chairman, Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife. Conservation and the Envi- 

 ronment. House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee. Washington, D.C. 



Dear Mr. Chairman : Thank you for your invitation to testify at the tuna- 

 porpoise oversight hearing conducted by your subcommittee on March 2, 1977. 

 We are using this means, instead, of conveying our views on this complex, 

 controversial issue. Accordingly, we would appreciate it if you would include 

 this letter in your hearing record. 



As you know, the Federation has been concerned for several years about the 

 incidental killing of porpoises resulting from yellowfin tuna commercial fishing 

 operations in the eastern Pacific. A resolution (copy enclosed) on this subject 

 was adopted by NWF at its annual meeting in 1975. Our concern stems largely 

 from our interest in protecting the brood stocks of the various porpoise species 

 and populations. 



The Administration's proposed 1977 yellowfin tuna fishing regulations pub- 

 lished on March 1, 1977 in the Federal Register established among other things, 

 a total "incidental take" porpoise quota of 59.050. We understand that this 

 figure represents the maximum number of porpoises that can be taken without 

 causing further adverse impact on their optimum sustainable population (OSP) 

 levels. It is our further understanding that the quota of 59,050 reflects the best 

 judgment of scientists within the National Marine Fisheries Service, the Marine 

 Mammal Commission and the academic community using the best data available. 



Therefore, it seems to us that under the circumstances the Administration 

 had no recourse to act other than in the manner it has to ensure that eastern 

 spinner porpoise stocks — already at the lower limit of OSP and considered 

 depleted — are properly safeguarded from further incidental taking. The language 

 of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) is quite specific in that regard. 

 Accordingly, the National Wildlife Federation supports the regulations. 



