41 



joys the confidence of those people it regulates, it should not be 

 placed in that responsibility. 



So we urge you to use your influence with the agencies to make 

 sure that whatever salmon plan is adopted is one that addresses 

 the needs and principles that we think should guide it and make 

 sure that we restore these fisheries to levels of harvestable abun- 

 dance and protect our commercial, tribal and sport salmon fishing 

 industries. Thank you. 



[Statement of Thane Tienson can be found at the end of the hear- 

 ing.] 



Ms. Unsoeld. Thank you. Next Mr. Bakke from Oregon Trout. 



STATEMENT OF BILL BAKKE, DIRECTOR FOR RESOURCE 

 CONSERVATION, OREGON TROUT 



Mr. Bakke. Thank you. My name is Bill Bakke, representing Or- 

 egon Trout. I would like to lead off by saying that Oregon Trout 

 is the lead petitioner on the Snake River chinook that were listed 

 under the Endangered Species Act and frankly right now I think 

 we are at the point where those chinook should be upgraded to en- 

 dangered status. 



The problems confronting the salmon in the Columbia River are 

 not unique to the Columbia River, they are coastwise problems but 

 the Recovery Team is focusing on the Columbia River. I am hoping 

 that it will serve as a model to address problems from central Cali- 

 fornia actually all the way to the Canadian border. 



Let us deal first with the questions. While Oregon Trout made 

 many critical comments on the draft recovery plan, we concluded 

 that it was the first full life cycle plan the region has ever produced 

 and therefore we generally supported it. 



The only other life cycle plan is the strategy for salmon recently 

 adopted by the Power Planning Council but the Council lacks au- 

 thority to implement its plan. The strengths of the recovery plan 

 are it provides a single authority and accountability in the Na- 

 tional Marine Fisheries Service, it establishes a Scientific Over- 

 sight Committee so the recovery measures are scientifically driven 

 and evaluated, and it sets a sound delisting criteria. 



And without a recovery plan, the region will continue to perpet- 

 uate the problems that cause the salmon to be listed in the first 

 place. The weaknesses of the recovery plan are its reliance upon 

 technological intervention such as hatchery propagation and smolt 

 transportation. Based on our review of scientific literature, we view 

 hatchery supplementation as an untested theoretical experiment 

 that should not be broadly applied until evaluated and any funding 

 directed toward supplementation should be looking at risk contain- 

 ment. 



Another major weakness is that the recovery plan does not estab- 

 lish an institutional mechanism or commitment that is specific to 

 the recovery of natural stocks which I thought the recovery plan 

 was supposed to be doing. This is evident from the absence of a 

 natural production strategy stated specifically within the plan. 



Finally, the National Marine Fisheries Service cannot by itself 

 recover salmon without the institutional commitment of other Fed- 

 eral and State agencies to solve the salmon habitat problems in the 

 region. 



