480 



I guess the other side of the argument is we can say if we had 

 not had the augmentation of the flows and the help that we got 

 there, that some might not be extinct, or even more stocks might 

 be endangered. So that is another way to look at it. 



Just to Mr. Chaney, if you could address this. I saw the Idaho 

 wilderness example and I think that is an interesting example. Of 

 course, it is not totally controlled in that the Elk River, in my dis- 

 trict, without impoundments, with virtually no timber harvest ac- 

 tivity, with no major industrial development, with a very small 

 amount of residential development, is also seeing some significant 

 problems in returns. So you know, maybe I would say that you 

 have got to give something to Mr. Godard and Mr. Lovelin's argu- 

 ments about harvest here too because even on virtually pristme 

 wild and scenic rivers, which I got most of the Elk in, we have got 

 problems. 



Mr. Chaney. Oh, there is no question about it. Well, since the 

 passage of the Magnuson Act, harvest clearly was out of control 

 and that is what prompted in large part the Magnuson Act, and 

 since that time, ocean harvests on the stocks that concern the Co- 

 lumbia River have been reduced probably somewhere in the neigh- 

 borhood of 75 percent. But mixed stock fisheries are always going 

 to be a problem when you have got weak stocks mixed in with 

 them. 



Mr. DeFazio. Or by catch for other non-target species, like when 

 they are going for hake or whiting or whatever they call it. 



Mr. Chaney. Well mainly the problem is when you are going for 

 other salmon. And there has been much ado made about the killer 

 ocean and the drought and those kinds of things. But you know, 

 the killer ocean has always been there and we have recurring 

 droughts and over 10,000 or 20,000 years, the Columbia River did 

 just fine, Snake River stocks did just fine, because they were pro- 

 ducing at a very high level of productivity. That is the whole na- 

 ture of the beast, they produce these enormous numbers of fish, 

 and that is the survival mechanism that gets these fish past all of 

 these natural variations in weather and ocean productivity and all 

 that. 



The problem is the dams have sapped that enormous productiv- 

 ity and resiUency; the fish cannot stand it. Some naturally occur- 

 ring event — if the fish were at a healthy level, you know, they 

 would just skip right on past it — becomes catastrophic. But those 

 naturally occurring events affect all stocks, whether it is a run 

 with dams or not. But it does not mitigate against the fact that, 

 you know, we measure how many fish the dams kill. That is not 

 really a subject of much debate. We argue about whether it is 85 

 percent of the juveniles or 75 percent, but it is such an enormous 

 impact, it saps the ability of the runs to withstand these natural 

 phenomena. 



Mr. DeFazio. Right. I do not think we are contesting that, and 

 we are trying to figure out how to deal with that in the best way 

 possible. But I just do want to make the point that — and I think 

 it is well taken — ^you know, we have always talked about the four 

 Hs, it is more like four Hs plus some other factors 



Mr. Chaney. Plus nature. 



