34 



that it is not really a surprise. It is probably inappropriate for me 

 at this point to try to decide which side of that particular issue I 

 come down on in trying to answer your question about the material 

 attached to Mr. James' testimony. 



Mrs. Unsoeld. Which side do you think the fish would come 

 down on? 



Dr. Matlock. Probably whichever side would give them the most 

 possibility of surviving in the long term, and that probably changes 

 through time, is my guess. With respect to the Federal Government 

 having a vote on the Commission, I honestly have not given that 

 any thought at all, so I don't have any response for you to that one. 



Mrs. Unsoeld. Well, Mr. Derwinski, how about you? 



Mr. Derwinski. Madam Chairman, I would have to go back to 

 my days in Congress when some wise old Member told me when 

 I was a young Member, that there were two groups in our society 

 that were impossible to please, farmers and fishermen. And when 

 you have a clash, you have the commercial, you have the sport fish- 

 ermen, you have the Indians with their tribal rights and then you 

 have the State issues involved; getting a consensus is always dif- 

 ficult. 



The usual way you get it, though, is by a trade-off. That requires 

 special emphasis. I would prefer that the States hammer out a con- 

 sensus among themselves. I do not think in the long run it would 

 be practical to have the Federal voice be the dominant voice when 

 you have such strong traditional, very important State interests in 

 each of the three States involved. I just don't see where 

 superimposing a Federal decisionmaking process, which really 

 means then ultimate jurisdiction, would be an answer that most 

 fisherman would want. 



Mrs. Unsoeld. We do need a forcing mechanism in situations as 

 we now face with the conservation crisis facing 



Mr. Derwinski. You approach it in two different ways. I think 

 you need a forcing mechanism to get the Treaty, to get the Treaty 

 reestablished, and treaty rights, and then in the process, I think 

 you could hammer out from within the structure of a new treaty, 

 an agreed-upon method of breaking impasses. 



I think those are separate questions. I would hope that you don't 

 allow the situation to drift for 14 years, as the last negotiating 

 processes with Canada continued. In the meantime, these gentle- 

 men on my left meet regularly, they battle regularly, but they also 

 understand each other's positions, when they will give and when 

 they absolutely can't. I am convinced that they could hammer out 

 some solution based on their experiences of the last eight or nine 

 years. 



Mrs. Unsoeld. You are convinced they could, but it hasn't been 

 proven yet? 



Mr. Derwinski. I think it would be in their interests, in their re- 

 spective States' interest, that they could work it out at that level. 



Mrs. Unsoeld. I suppose the inclination of the Commission 

 members is apparent, that Mr. James and Mr. Turner have offered 

 a specific proposal which Mr. Meacham has found falling somewhat 

 short of what he would propose. 



But how do we bring the parties then to the table, the U.S. par- 

 ties to the table with a united position so that we do not continue 



