28 



Mr. Turner. Well, all of the assumptions that you stated are, in 

 fact, the hypotheses that lead fisheries managers to want to inves- 

 tigate selective fisheries. First of all, selective fishing is a generic 

 term, and is a good management tool. Most of the regulations that 

 we use today are intended to make fisheries as selective as they 

 can be, whether by means of gear type, time, or area. All of those 

 things are components of selectivity. 



The recent debate, though, is about somehow marking fish in a 

 manner that might provide some visible means of telling whether 

 that fish is hatchery stock, and therefore harvestable, or wild stock, 

 and one that we would like to conserve. In today's world, the selec- 

 tivity issue focuses around mass marking and then the gear, the 

 technology that would allow harvest to take advantage of that 

 marking. 



There are a huge number of scientific questions that you have to 

 leap through to get from the hypothesis to the scientific conclusion. 

 This includes questions such as: how many hatchery fish will suffer 

 mortalities because of the marking that has to occur? 



Mr. Hamburg. Because of the marking, or the problems out in 

 the oceans as far as the hooking. 



Mr. Turner. Well, I was going to get there. 



Mr. Hamburg. Oh, I am sorry. I don't have much time. 



Mr. Turner. You have to consider a lot of different scientific 

 questions. One of which is, if California does it and if Oregon does 

 it, if Washington does it and if tribes do it and Canada and Alas- 

 ka — if everybody is marking their hatchery fish, that is a much big- 

 ger bang for your buck than if only Washington does, because then 

 you have many more marked fish out in the fisheries. Because that 

 coast-wide approach is viewed to be the best advantage, the Salm- 

 on Commission was viewed to be the umbrella organization that 

 should pursue the science. As you pointed out, they are so doing, 

 with the development of a computer model that will allow scientists 

 and policymakers to look at the implications of the wide variety of 

 assumptions that have to be built into that use. 



It is our hope that by this winter, we will have that tool in place, 

 and scientists will be able to use it in a way that will allow policy- 

 makers to decide whether this is a good tool or a bad tool. 



Mr. Hamburg. Could this tool help us at all with the problem of 

 intercepting stocks being intercepted between the two countries? 



Mr. Turner. It will allow us to correct some of the problems 

 interceptions cause, such as to wild stocks and the like, and har- 

 vest in general. It will allow us to reduce harvest on stocks of con- 

 cern. Interception levels will occur anyway. 



Mr. Hamburg. Right. But we will know where the fish came 

 from; is that correct? 



Mr. Turner. Not because of mass marking per se. We know 

 where fish come from today because of our existing coded wire-tag 

 system. 



Mr. Hamburg. OK. 



Mr. Turner. In fact, one of the issues we are concerned about 

 with marking fish is whether or not it will allow that existing 

 coded wire-tag system to maintain its scientific credibility. 



Mr. Hamburg. Right, right, as far as the fm clip and 



Mr. Turner. Exactly. 



