situation the legal kind of exceptions in the business was custom made for this case he played just have no assurance that this contest will not be repeated would be biological think so but we have in this situation here is the protected resources office with the issuing of biological canyon which would say some interchange between personnel and they're looking at the same data presumably but they are and they are generally done at the same time but they're not necessarily connected and they the came and now the agency has unilaterally said well we're not going to do it until may so at what stage of development the yes maybe if any i have no way of knowing that they may be preparing when they may not the point is there is no fourth quarter or anything other then their statement that they are not going to proceed and the government looks at statements in place with respect to the biological given that there is not even that and even if there were it is clear that even if they were to say today or any other time we absolutely will do another biological pinioned that designed to catch over three hundred listed sea turtles with the expectation that approximately one hundred seven of them will die will in fact jeopardize to because we're going to assume that this experiment will in fact the successful and it and it will in fact lead to the discovery of turtle state long lin this record following this line i have had said earlier this year in the national wildlife case for ford said the regulatory standard for using  mitigation must be reasonably specifically certain to occur capable of implementation and subject to deadlines for otherwise enforceable obligations so the standard whenever you have an impact specific that may be true but that is very far from the legal standard worth issue in jeopardy in based upon future benefits so we have a very catch hundreds of them knowing that over one hundred of them will likely die off risks jeopardizing their continued existence and then justifies it by saying well issued as a result of very intense political pressure by the life these fourth this long lining industry which currently banned from fishing out of hawaii specifically because of the impact of that industry they will not do another experiment that is substantially similar to this last one without first doing an environmental impact statement and without first preparing the biological opinion that follows the correct legal analysis rather than faulty legal analysis that they followed last night and there is absolutely no indication that the government  knowledges that its legal analysis that followed in the biological opinion last time was false intact as i say there's every indication that they are happy to follow it again feet the question is is it moved and whether it would be a waste of all of the resources that have gone into carrying this case litigated for the past year and a half and then going back before this court all racing the clock to work out once again the defendants starting with the experimental fishery which we had a difficult enough time for the first time as they started the first phase of their experiment only so we're looking at that going through this entire process over again without any assurance that we will be able to get if we use his time and if it is because of this pr clients from having to run back into court time and time again and if they withdraw their permit again in the same way they did the last five ten days before they filed their will brief then what then we going decision and that any new there will be a new buyout has there will be if there is any new research permit it will be based on new information that was in analyzing the only to the extent that we could proceed is very narrow and the only way names could proceed was to proceed with phase two on that schedule we can't since we didn't do that we are we believe that we are now advocate an interpretation of the e s a they would effectively preclude research for the species and for other seriously defining populations i believe it is important to understand at the outset what this case is about it's not a simple matter of species versus industry on the contrary just his is somewhat of a paradox all of the parties here including the conservancy agree that bycatch production by the foreign status of the species in fluids and as the fisheries able to reduce or eliminate its impact it will likely be permitted to display more effort so that is the basis for the fisheries supports that is permit and apparently the basis for a about one hundred highly regulated vessels and is total catch is only about two percent of the total pacific flooded after at the same time there's a very steady international market demand for tuna and swordfish product  here is not a lot of case law a how does the jeopardy standard apply in the research context and in the context of the seriously declining population that is basically threatened by international problems over which the us does not congress i think recognized that out in the data the knowledge and study of the species is integral to devising effective conservation measures and that research it is inherently uncertain is mr guarantee the result benefits of the research itself in other words of the data and i don't think that can be overlooked here yes actually that identified a lack of the liable data concerning the species as a threat because again it hinders a second conservation measures from being developed guarantee against the likelihood of jeopardy and that's an important distinction when it made the member amendment congress stated it did not intend its to issue and negative opinions simply because there was some uncertainty but rather  stick to the the issue that the counsel for the agency raise for heatedly she said that he believes we are doing and there was much discussion about how the stay have done it in the fair doing it now there are long lines fishermen who have taken it upon themselves to try you methods because it's in their interest to have these for the financial health and we have said repeatedly why don't you these things they don't require you to question there is has i'm going to bring a long line fishery and there has been for the last couple of years doing doing the exact same things that the government wants to do out of