20 



Another perspective is that some portion of the value of those 

 fish spawned in Canada that are caught in Alaska (some portion 

 of the value, since these are jointly owned, shared fish) could be 

 put into a jointly administered restoration and enhancement fund, 

 to benefit the resource and benefit the fishermen of both countries. 

 That is what I mean when I talk about prudent businessman ap- 

 proach to solving "equity". 



Mr. Young. I heard Mr. Turner and Mr. James go south, and Ed, 

 welcome aboard, by the way. As an ex-member, glad to see you 

 here. 



Let's talk about the equity solution. In Canada's terms of equity, 

 there is no way that I think any of the commissioners, if I read the 

 letter from Governor Lowry, can accept the equity being proposed 

 by Canada. I know we can't in Alaska. 



But do you see this Commission, this group before myself today, 

 if Canada insists on their equity position, ever solving this prob- 

 lem? 

 Mr. Turner. If I may. 

 Mr. Young. Sure. 



Mr. Turner. I don't mean to recast your question, but from my 

 perspective, the issue here is not who is right and who is wrong. 

 Mr. Young. It is fish. 



Mr. Turner. It is not whether Alaska's view of equity is correct 

 or incorrect, nor is the issue about whether my view of equity is 

 correct or incorrect, or for that matter, Canada's. The issue is one 

 of dispute resolution. We have no means in place to resolve the dif- 

 ferences between a variety of views about any particular issue, and 

 therefore, the status quo prevails. What we are suggesting is a 

 forcing mechanism that requires dispute resolution to occur. 

 Mr. Young. Let me get my time back here. 



How are you going to force Canada into whatever we do, into 

 that position? I mean, I just can't see that happening. 



By the way, which reminds me; do you think this could be 

 worked out between the West Coast-British Columbia primarily, 

 Alaska, and Washington and Oregon, or do you think there may be 

 a little interference from Ottawa and DC? 



Mr. Turner. I have no question that there is interference from 

 Ottawa. 



Mr. Young. Madam Chairman, we are looking for a solution 

 here, and again, it goes back to Canada. I don't think Canada will 

 buy into a Federal Government quote, saying, "you guys can't reach 

 a decision, so this is what it is going to be." 



Now, you can negotiate that position. But what I am worried 

 about, if I am a Federal person, you haven't been able to reach this 

 decision, and you are at a stalemate; I come down as a Federal per- 

 son and say this is what it is and you take this position and nego- 

 tiate with Canada. Canada refuses that position. 



You still haven't reached a solution, the United States conies 

 back again and you end up being nonfunctioning. You end up being 

 zero, because Canada knows full good and well the answer is, 

 Washington, DC, not yourselves, not the State of Alaska, not the 

 State of Washington, not the State of Oregon, if you follow what 

 I am trying to say. 



