51 



Marine Trade Association on the transfer of our industry to the Ca- 

 nadian fisheries. 



But in terms of expenditures per fish I have seen figures Hke $30 

 for a coho all the way up to $495 per fish in Alaska and so if we 

 wanted to be conservative and look at recovery in the Columbia 

 River at $100 a fish, which if I look at the thousands of dollars I 

 have in fishing, that is a pretty low figure. 



And we would look at the fact that we have lost some 10 million 

 fish. It is staggering figures, just staggering on what the value is 

 to the sport fishing industry. I wouldn't address what the value 

 would be to commercial or tribal interests but just to our industry 

 alone. 



People spend tremendous sums of money in pursuit of salmon. I 

 can't explain it. I think it is a genetic defect, I am not sure. I know 

 I have it. Maybe it is a designer gene, I don't know. 



Ms. FURSE. Thank you. 



Ms. FURSE. Thank you. Mr. Tienson, what contribution do you 

 feel that harvest plays in the salmon decline and how will addi- 

 tional harvest restrictions affect their recovery? 



Mr. Tienson. Even Dr. Bevan and his team acknowledged, as I 

 understand it, that the complete elimination of U.S. fishing on 

 salmon would not in any way bring about a recovery of the salmon 

 even under the most favorable of their assumptions, and nobody 

 has really contradicted that. 



And that is why it is — frustrating isn't the word. I mean it is ab- 

 solutely outrageous to us that once again we are being singled out 

 as the industry that needs to carry the burden for salmon recovery. 



We already have, we always will, but the 95 percent-plus burden 

 is too darn much. It is not fair. It is not going to do a darn thing 

 except eliminate the need to bring back these stocks to harvestable 

 levels of abundance. 



You already hear people saying, well, gee, if we get rid of the gill 

 net fishery that means we would have more fish to trade to the Ca- 

 nadians, then the Alaskans. The minds are already going in that 

 regard. 



It is not fair. When those dams were created, the Mitchell Act 

 was passed because there was an express acknowledgement and 

 recognition that there would be decimation of the salmon run so we 

 would need to provide some means of restoring those runs or com- 

 pensating for them. 



And that was in order to benefit tribal, sport and commercial 

 fisheries and we need to recognize that and keep that in mind as 

 we restore these stocks. We don't need to eliminate fisheries. There 

 is no reason to. Eliminating them won't bring any salmon back. 

 The only thing it will do is destroy coastal and river economies and 

 the culture of the region. 



Ms. FuRSE. Thank you. My time has expired. 



Ms. Unsoeld. I would advise the panel that I believe the staff 

 has some additional questions they would like to submit to some 

 of you in writing. I would thank you for coming. 



I would also comment that it is clear that we don't have a sim- 

 ple, easily identified entity that we can point a finger at that is 

 going to be the decisionmaking body. Therefore it is extremely im- 

 portant that we all work together and that we swallow some of our 



