27 



has to do with the Klamath River fishery which is a fishery that is 

 used — the in-river fishery used primarily by the Uroc, the Karook 

 and the Hoopa tribe, and that fishery is being seriously depleted by 

 the tendency of sea lions to camp at the mouth of the Klamath 

 River. And I don't know what all the factors are, but apparently 

 the river at the mouth is extremely shallow, and that makes it 

 even easier for the sea lions to make a significant dent in the Chi- 

 nook salmon that are trying to get upriver to spawn. 



The tribal groups understand the sensitivity around this issue. 

 They are not out there with rifies shooting sea lions. They are look- 

 ing for a solution, and I would like to ask if any of you panel mem- 

 bers have any ideas about how we might approach a problem like 

 that? No one? 



Mr. Thornburgh. Yes. 



Mr. Hamburg. Mr. Thornburgh. 



Mr. Thornburgh. Yes, sir. I would suggest that — well, first of 

 all, one of my concerns in solving that problem has typically been 

 to focus attention on other fisheries so if Hoopa and Uroc fisher- 

 men have an interest in retaining their fisheries, which we all 

 want them to do, there has been a tendency, of course, to try to 

 reduce recreational and commercial fishing elsewhere to assure 

 that fish come in to spawn and also to provide those local people 

 with their fish. So one solution is not to reduce fisheries elsewhere 

 to provide more fish. The solution should be to somehow try to con- 

 trol those mammals. 



Now, if the general public can't scare them away because it is 

 against the law, if only commercial fishermen can scare them 

 away, and if the State and Federal Governments are not trying to 

 deter them, then the problem will continue. I am not suggesting 

 that we go in and cull the herd there, but there needs to be a 

 proactive mechanism to try to deter those animals away, and the 

 general public can't even do it. 



Mr. Hamburg. Right. Anyone else who wants to comment on 

 that? 



Ms. Young. Yes. Mr. Thornburgh and I are sitting at opposite 

 ends of the table for some reason, I think. I think that oftentimes 

 people look to trying to eliminate the marine mammals as a solu- 

 tion, and the analogy I would like to offer you is your backyard 

 garden and woodchucks. If you have a garden in your backyard 

 and you have a woodchuck eating your produce, shooting the wood- 

 chuck will not solve the problem because the resource is still there. 

 It will attract other animals, and you can't go out and shoot every 

 single possible animal that could come in and eat your garden. 



The solution is to try to figure out what it is that is attractive 

 about your particular yard and to look at all the possible solutions, 

 only one of which may involve looking at management measures. 

 To go back to the ocean again, what ends up happening is that the 

 only solution that people look at, is that we have to get rid of them, 

 and not really looking at whether there is a reduced number of 

 fish, and, if so, why that is. Or whether the environment — the river 

 mouth through which the fish are migrating has changed. Has it 

 silted in? Is there a problem with a change in the coastline such 

 that the problem is being exacerbated and cannot be changed. 



