29 



Mr. Hamburg. One other question and then I would like to ask 

 if the other commissioners want to address these same issues. 



Is mass marking and the establishment of a selective fishery con- 

 sistent with the goals of the Treaty? I mean, in terms of conserva- 

 tion and maximization of productivity and the equity goal, in terms 

 of each country reaping the benefit and the fish that spawn in their 

 rivers, are these techniques, in your judgment, consistent with the 

 goals of the Treaty? 



Mr. Meacham. I would say the answer to that is yes. My view 

 is all hatchery-produced fish ought to be mass marked in some 

 fashion or another. That would be ideal. It is easier said than done, 

 though. 



Mr. Hamburg. Yes. And more expensive than just saying it — ^yes, 

 Mr. James, do you want to comment on this? 



Mr. James. Yes. I have a concern about, you know, the marking 

 and tagging of hatchery fish was meant for, or its design was to 

 find out what fish were being caught, and it is now being shifted 

 to, well, how can we catch those fish versus other fish? 



And I believe that gives us an opportunity to avoid addressing 

 the question that we have a problem with salmon, and if people 

 still are able to go out and fish and not have to put up with the 

 impacts of the decisions that have been made that affect our ability 

 to harvest them, then we will ignore the problem for a little longer. 



Mr. Hamburg. Mr. Turner, do you share that view? 



Mr. Turner. Yes. My answer was a conditional "yes." Yes, condi- 

 tioned on the science saying that it makes sense. And please keep 

 in mind that marking fish doesn't produce any fish. In fact, it is 

 a way to go out and catch more fish. And we do not want to use 

 that as an excuse to be blind to the problems that we have on the 

 production side. 



Mr. Hamburg. But it does potentially have a good effect on the 

 wild and natural stocks and allow them to replenish while we fish 

 the hatchery fish. 



Mr. Turner. That is the hypothesis, but it has to be proven in 

 science. 



Mr. Hamburg. Right. 



Thank you. Madam Chair. 



Mrs. Unsoeld. The gentlewoman from Washington has arrived. 



Would you have some questions you would like to ask? Or enter 

 a statement? 



Ms. Cantwell. Thank you. Madam Chairman. 



I would like to submit my statement for the record. 



[The statement of Ms. Cantwell follows:] 



Statement of Hon. Maria Cantwell, a U.S. Representative from Washington 



Mr. Chairman, I want to commend you and your staff for holding this extremely 

 timely hearing on the Pacific Salmon Treaty. As you know, the last effort to nego- 

 tiate 1994 fishing regimes broke down in mid-July. For the first time since the Trea- 

 ty was signed in 1985, there will be no formal international agreement on salmon 

 resource management between Canada and the United States. At a time when 

 salmon resources in the Northwest are in a critical state of decline, the lack of an 

 agreement should sound an alarm that our international fisheries management sys- 

 tem is not working. 



Today we have the opportunity to look in-depth at the Treaty structure — where 

 it has succeeded, where it has failed and where changes must be made. The Pacific 

 Salmon Treaty is an important tool for the management of intermingUng salmon 



