20 



Marine Fisheries Service gathered a group of experts from around 

 the country on gas bubble disease. 



They met last week and it is my understanding that they will be 

 issuing a report; maybe it was issued yesterday or today, on the 

 impacts and the risk in the Columbia River to gas bubble disease. 



We would look upon that as a kind of subcommittee that the 

 salmon oversight committee would use in order to give NMFS inde- 

 pendent advice. We think that the system has broken down over 

 the years where there is too much argument among agencies with- 

 out critical evaluation by experts on the science that ought to be 

 used to make the decision. 



We are simply saying we ought to use science, we need a science- 

 based group to give NMFS advice but NMFS is going to be the de- 

 cisionmaking body in our view. 



Ms. Cantwell. So you would see this oversight committee in an 

 independent advisory role but what would happen then if the over- 

 sight committee gave an advisory opinion that NMFS might dis- 

 agree with — I would just like to be clear, are we talking about advi- 

 sory or are we talking about de facto? 



We want the process to work and I am one that believes that we 

 definitely need more coordination and more specification. 



Mr. Bevan. I see it as advisory but on the other hand I see a 

 committee with enough stature in the community, with enough re-_ 

 spect in the region that if NMFS doesn't want to take their advice, 

 that group such as this one will recognize those differences and in 

 the long run we have got to have a body of people that are expert, 

 that, as I say, have the respect. 



I look upon this committee as being former judges, former gov- 

 ernors, scientifically based in large respect but one that has the re- 

 spect of the region and the NMFS I think will be unlikely not to 

 take their advice but they certainly have no power, in our view. 



We don't see how you can set up a structure of that kind without 

 changes in the law. 



Ms. Cantwell. Thank you. Madam Chair. I would love to ex- 

 plore this further but my time has expired and perhaps on the next 

 round or perhaps you will get to Mr. Bottiger before I will. 



Ms. Unsoeld. Thank you. I join in the welcome that Chairman 

 Studds gave to my colleague from Washington State. Although I 

 have not had the pleasure, it might not be pleasure, but I have not 

 had the opportunity to be in a fishing boat with him. 



I know that he comes to this issue from not the theoretical but 

 from the real experience. Mr. Dicks. 



Mr. Dicks. From the sports and recreational and actually from 

 the benefit of having been on a purse-seiner for two years working 

 my way through law school. 



I just want to commend our chairman and the members here for 

 this hearing and I want to commend all the members of our panel 

 for the excellent testimony. I just wish you had more time to be 

 able to go into more detail. 



I will ask this of the panel. One of the major conflicts has been 

 the question of barge transportation, taking these fish down by 

 barges versus I guess additional flows or spills, whatever draw 

 downs in the river system. 



