16 



We have in the implementing legislation an experiment in public 

 policy. We have Federal policy articulated in the Treaty and we 

 have the implementation of Federal policy through the required 

 consensus of regional representatives. 



I think it is timely for this Committee today to look at whether 

 or not that experiment in public policy is an effective tool to imple- 

 ment Federal policy. And of course we agree with G.I. James and 

 his testimony, that it is not working. It does not effectively imple- 

 ment Federal policy, and it is time to review it and call for a 

 change. 



We have submitted in our testimony the same language that G.I. 

 James mentioned in his testimony that would suggest a change. 



The issues that you have before you dealing with chinook and 

 coho conservation on the West Coast are not new. They have been 

 raised repeatedly and, particularly since 1992, have become the 

 primary focus of our concern. Because of those overriding conserva- 

 tion concerns, we have the concurrent issues presented by fishing 

 closures that face fishers up and down the coast, including Wash- 

 ington State's commercial fishers. 



Congressman Swift represents many of those commercial fishers, 

 and has legitimate concerns about the impacts that those conserva- 

 tion decisions may have on his constituencies. But the bottom line 

 is that because of the way Canada manages its fisheries, because 

 Canada intercepts only Washington and Oregon stocks to a great 

 degree, and not many Alaska stocks, no matter whether Canada's 

 concerns be with Alaska fisheries or whether they be with Wash- 

 ington State and tribal interceptions of Fraser River fish, wherever 

 Canada's concerns lie, Washington pays the price. We pay the price 

 through increased interceptions on the west coast of Vancouver Is- 

 land. 



So Washington is at a geographic disadvantage in this equation. 

 We acknowledge it up front. The table is not level from a negotiat- 

 ing perspective, and we must deal from that point of disadvantage. 



Unfortunately, because the implementing legislation vests us all 

 in the status quo, we are unable to make the kinds of improve- 

 ments that we expected in 1985. Equity has become the primary 

 issue in these negotiations today. Canada is very frustrated and ar- 

 ticulates that frustration with our inability to move on equity. 



Secretary of State Schultz recognized at the time he submitted 

 the Treaty and its implementing legislation to the Senate that eq- 

 uity was going to be difficult. With reference to equity, and I am 

 quoting his letter of transmittal, he said, "This will be no simple 

 task. We anticipate that this calculation of equity will consider, 

 among other factors, numbers of fish that are intercepted, their 

 size and growth potential, and their value. 



"To the extent that the Commission is able to ascertain levels of 

 interception by each party are not equivalent, it would expect with- 

 in the Commission the parties would develop a phased program to 

 adjust and compensate for inequity." 



We are 9 years down the road. We have not made one inch of 

 progress on the very issue that was identified up front to be an 

 issue of concern. 



Chinook rebuilding was also a major focus of the Treaty in 1985, 

 and a similar evolution of concern and status quo could be articu- 



