31 



not so concerned about the strong Federal voice as a strong U.S. 

 voice coming out of the U.S. section of the Pacific Salmon Commis- 

 sion. And essentially since I am going to be Chair next year, I 

 would like clear direction as to where we are going to be able to 

 take this process. 



Ms. Cantwell. Mr. Meacham, do you have any comments on 

 this, or any of the other panelists? 



Mr. Meacham. Just a very brief comment, and that is relative 

 to the proposal we have greater Federal Government involvement. 

 I am concerned because 99.9 percent of the harvest of salmon in 

 Southeast Alaska comes from within our State jurisdictional wa- 

 ters. I have a very difficult time, knowing Federal management of 

 salmon in Alaska was abysmal. So I am concerned about any in- 

 crease in Federal roles here. 



I would much rather support a separation between northern ne- 

 gotiations and southern negotiations, where you try and solve these 

 problems a little closer to home. 



Ms. Cantwell. But, obviously, having a treaty is a higher prior- 

 ity than just not having greater Federal involvement? 



Mr. Meacham. Oh, I believe in the treaty process and in the 

 framework, but as regards to giving up State responsibility, State 

 authorities, in the process, I have a number of concerns. 



Ms. Cantwell. So you think this process has worked? 



Mr. Meacham. It has clearly worked most of the time in north- 

 ern areas. We have healthy salmon stocks in northern BC and very 

 healthy salmon stocks throughout Alaska. 



Ms. Cantwell. But would you call the current situation in fail- 

 ing to get a treaty a crisis, or would you say that is just a 



Mr. Meacham. No, it is clearly a crisis for southern stocks. 

 Again, northern stocks are healthy and we have been able to work 

 out fishery arrangements, with a lot of help from mother nature, 

 to keep them that way. 



Ms. Cantwell. Any of the other panelists like to comment? 



Thank you. 



Mrs. Unsoeld. I am surprised Dr. Matlock didn't comment when 

 he was given the opportunity there, because I came back to you for 

 a response on that, and perhaps also from Mr. Derwinski, and then 

 we will have a vote and see how many of you agree on the changes 

 that are being proposed and whether we have a consensus here. 

 But it isn't my turn yet. 



The gentleman from Alaska. 



Mr. Young. Thank you. Madam Chair. 



I again state my reservation. I think Mr. Meacham put it very 

 clearly. I don't think the Federal Government should have the final 

 say in that regardless of what occurs, because it does shortchange 

 Washington, Oregon, the tribes, and Mr. James agrees with that. 



There may be a way to work out something within the Commis- 

 sion itself, maybe a majority, some type of view, but not the Fed- 

 eral Government, is something we may want to look at. 



The Coast Guard gentleman has been sitting there very pa- 

 tiently. I just can't tolerate that right now. For the Coast Guard, 

 what really brought this to the attention of everyone was the Cana- 

 dian seizure or charging of fees through Canadian waters against 

 international law. You know the Canadian fishermen fishing salm- 



