102 



The problem of the disputed area was between the United States 

 and Canada was basically solved once as I remember correctly. 



To the great credit of the Carter administration it was worked 

 out, but we could not get an agreement on the east coast, if I re- 

 member correctly, and it all fell apart. We have a similar problem 

 up in the Beaufort Sea where there are two lines and each country 

 claims a different line. 



Now, I do not know why — and I am not critical of the Coast 

 Guard — but that one policy is to allow them into our waters for 

 safe harbors when they do not allow you into their waters for safe 

 harbor. We are going to take that up when we get back to Wash- 

 ington. We will try to follow through. 



I do think that you ought to be able to be in the disputed zone 

 without being harassed by the Canadian enforcement agency if we 

 are extending the same courtesy to them. And if you have any spe- 

 cific problems in that, I urge you or your people to contact us. I am 

 in regular contact with a member of the Canadian Parliament from 

 the B.C. area, and we meet about once a year to talk over prob- 

 lems. And if any of these come up, once again I will be glad to pur- 

 sue them. 



Mr. Chairman, we will get some specific answers to Mr. Leigh ton 

 and Mr. Coburn on their concerns. I think Captain Dorsey 

 reaffirmed here today that you should not be harassed within the 

 disputed zone. 



Now, it is true that we also have the salmon allocation disputes, 

 but that is something we can solve with the treaty. 



Well, Ms. Pagels, we are delighted to have your testimony with 

 your familiarity on the waste issue. I am glad to see you on board 

 with your background representing Greenpeace. That will be very 

 meaningful. It was very meaningful to us when Greenpeace came 

 on board to help with the driftnet issue. You may remember that 

 they once brought a driftnet the had intercepted and set it up down 

 on the mall. It went up and down the mall four times, and finally 

 people got to understand how long a driftnet really was. But here, 

 your testimony is a substantial contribution, and I appreciate it. 



Ms. Lande, we still do not have all the answers on IFQ's or 

 ITQ's, and I appreciated hearing your concerns. Thank you. 



The Chairman. Well, let me ask this finally, get all this panel 

 to get me straight on this. And as I understand it, we can go over 

 this. Other than the problem of bycatch, we do have quotas, and 

 I believe we have those quotas to limit the catch and promote con- 

 servation — Ms. Lande, is that correct? You have an alliance against 

 these individual fishery quotas — would you say it puts economics 

 first and does not put conservation first? I thought that was the 

 reason for the quota, but from your testimony, unless I got the 

 wrong impression, that is exactly what it really mitigates against; 

 namely conservation. 



Ms. Lande. That is right. At the present time we have what is 

 called a total allowable catch. The quota system has not been 

 fully — the Commerce Department has not fully signed off on it. 

 And it does not deal with conservation. One of the first things that 

 is going to happen under the quota system is that the prohibited 

 species cap is going to be eliminated. And that is — there is a 750- 

 metric ton catch, mortality cap on halibut. Once any fishery 



