101 



Senator Stevens. But the level was placed at what was thought 



to be a conservative number of 



Ms. Pagels. Right. It was. 



Senator Stevens [continuing]. Sixty percent and- 



Ms. Pagels. Yes, it was, and part of that, I would imagine, was 

 politically motivated because we did not know at what point the 

 American fisheries would kick in. 



Senator Stevens. Right. We did not know they would get this 

 big. 



Ms. Pagels. Right. Exactly. But the point is that what — what I 

 have heard other panelists say is we need to look at overfishing as 

 no longer the single fisheries management regime. We need to look 

 at more of a multispecies management regime. And how we are 

 going to get there, I could not tell you that right now. I would say, 

 though, we need to consider what these ecosystems' impacts are 

 going to be or at least model or include for deficiencies in one stock 

 versus another stock and how they are related in an ecosystem, if 

 that makes any sense. 



So, my recommendation is you compare our fisheries to the New 

 England fisheries. One of our saving graces is that we have this 

 cap, and we have a quota system. And we have an economic quota, 

 and we have a biological quota, and we have overfishing quotas. In 

 other fisheries that are managed by net sizes or trip limits have 

 not done a very good job with respect to overfishing. 



The Chairman. OK With the deviation of the fisheries there, Mr. 

 Leighton, is that totally caused by bycatch problems? 



Mr. Leighton. I would say yes, that a lot of the problems are 

 because of bycatch. And I think another way to help eliminate it 

 is to restrict so many factory trawlers further off of our shores to 

 where they are not intercepting a lot of halibut and some of our 

 salmon, salmon species. 



Another thing I would like to make clear, too, is that the Magnu- 

 son Act has worked. And it worked effectively on the high seas 

 interception of our salmon. And I see it working continually in that 

 area, but I feel that it was not Senator Jackson's or Senator 

 Magnuson's intent to allow or to make it easy for Canada to come 

 in and take fishing grounds away from either Alaska or Washing- 

 ton. 



Senator Stevens. Let me deal with that, Mr. Leighton, J will get 

 you some specific answers to your questions. But Canada did not 

 adopt the Magnuson Act. I introduced the first 200-mile limit bill. 

 We named it after "Maggie," because, as Senator Hollings said, he 

 worked so hard to bring it about and bought about the compromise 

 at the time with the Seattle fishing industry, which was by and 

 large opposed to that act. And because we worked out a balance 

 and consensus we named it after "Maggie." 



Canada does not follow the Magnuson Act. It is not part of their 

 law. It is the boundary dispute as well as the salmon treaty that 

 gives us the problem, and as you know, we are currently at an im- 

 passe resolving many of the salmon treaty issues. 



You all here have paid the price for the salmon treaty, and we 

 will continue to try to make sure that there is not a further restric- 

 tion on the southeast Alaska king catch. 



