40 



So, in effect, a solution to the salmon recovery program is to 

 eliminate the need for recovering the salmon, eliminate the need 

 to recover these stocks to the levels of harvestable abundance. 



Both Dr. Bevan and Mr. Bottiger and Mr. Schmitten all testified 

 about the need for having a plan that didn't single out any particu- 

 lar user group. In fact, I wrote down Rollie Schmitten's words, "no 

 single user should carry the burden of recovery". 



Congressman Crapo talked about a plan that we wanted to en- 

 sure did not devastate any particular group of people or industry. 

 Well, let me tell you, under either of those standards this harvest 

 section does exactly that. It devastates an already devastated in- 

 dustry and it insists that the lion's share, the burden of recovery, 

 rests with the commercial salmon fishing industry. 



This, I remind you, is an industry that this year has experienced 

 over 95 percent reduction in harvest over the levels of only four 

 years ago. We have essentially consigned our coastal and river com- 

 munities that only a decade ago were salmon dependent to a reli- 

 ance on tourism and elimination of an incredibly important indus- 

 try that has contributed so significantly to those economies for well 

 over 100 years. 



It isn't fair. Both Dr. Bevan and Mr. Bottiger talked about the 

 differences between the Council's plan and the Bevan plan and 

 they said really the only differences were in the science. There are 

 not differences in the science, there certainly are not differences in 

 science with respect to the harvest section. Is the voluntary buyout 

 and leaseback program advocated by the Council and the manda- 

 tory elimination advocated by the Bevan Team a difference of 

 science? No. It is a difference of politics. We know that. 



We know that because we are an industry that has been so dev- 

 astated we are politically impotent. We know that we don't have 

 the political power that can force Congress or the agency 

 decisionmakers to do our bidding for you so we rely upon our elect- 

 ed representatives to influence those decisionmakers and that is 

 why we are also uncomfortable with the notion that we should 

 place primary responsibility for salmon management in the North- 

 west with the National Marine Fisheries Service. 



It is an agency that has not demonstrated that it deserves the 

 confidence of Federal, State, regional fish managers. It is certainly 

 not an agency that has demonstrated it deserves the confidence of 

 the commercial fishing industry. 



Rather it is, as Judge Marsh recognized it is, he invalidated the 

 1993 Biological Opinion on river operations, it is an agency that 

 really has done its utmost to maintain the status quo taking very 

 small steps, minor improvements and adjustments, and these are 

 his words, narrowly focused on what the establishment is capable 

 of handling with minimal disruption when the situation literally 

 cries out for a major overhaul. 



And I submit to you that the National Marine Fisheries Service, 

 even if it had the political will which it clearly does not, it doesn't 

 have the resources or the institutional ability to manage the salm- 

 on and take care of its other statutory responsibilities as well. 



And unless and until the agency, unless and until any agency or 

 group of agencies has those resources, has the political will and en- 



