56 



I would like to answer the second part of this question first. If by "unilateral" we mean isolated and 

 uncoordinated management conducted separately by each country, then, in my view, effective 

 unilateral fisheries management which ensures conservation and maximizes benefits from 

 intermingling salmon stocks is probably not possible. There have been numerous examples in 

 intemaUonal fisheries to substanUate this. A cooperative, well-coordinated management program 

 envisioned by this treaty is essential. 



Is there an alternative to the management regime in the Pacific Salmon Treaty? There is no single 

 treaty management regime, but rather a number of distinct annex/chapters structured to address 

 specific fisheries and stocks. The treaty management regimes established in 1985 provided a good 

 starting point by addressing some immediate stock conservation concerns and providing stability in 

 fisheries which had been lacking prior to the treaty. 



Experience gained since 1985 has shown, however, that while some of the initial regimes have worked 

 fairly well, others have not. For example, coordinated in-season management regimes for the Fraser 

 River and transboundary rivers which are responsive to annual fluctuations in salmon runs have been 

 reasonably successful in addressing conservation concerns as they arise and in providing harvest 

 shares agreed to under the treaty. 



On the other hand, management regimes based on fixed ceilings or catch limits, which do not take 

 into account annual fluctuations in salmon runs, have been less satisfactory. The Commission has 

 been dedicating a substantial amount of effort to identify options for "abundance-based" 

 management regimes to replaced the less flexible, fixed catch limits. Properly designed, such 

 approaches would be more responsive to conservation problems as they arise, and provide for a more 

 balanced sharing of annual salmon harvests. 



2) What are your specific goals for the Pacific Salmon Treaty and for the resources of 

 concern to the panel you represent? Which of these goals are being accomplished as the 

 treaty is currently administered and which are not? 



As Alaska's Pacific Salmon Commission Commissioner, my primary goals are those of the Pacific 

 Salmon Treaty: 



a) conservation of salmon stocks, 



b) optimum production fi-om salmon resources, 



c) equitable sharing of intermingling salmon. 

 In addition, I have two related goals: 



d) increased stability and predictability of fisheries crucial to Uie welfare of Southeast 

 Alaska's many small, rural communities which depend on these resources, and 



e) improved cooperation and "good-neighbor" relationships between Alaskan and 

 Canadian managers, fishery scientists, and fishermen. 



Which of these goals have been accomplished as the treaty is currentiy administered and which have 

 not? All of these goals have been met to some degree. As noted in my earlier testimony, salmon 

 stocks in the nortiiern treaty areas are generally healthy and few conservation problems exist. 

 However, some opportunities still exist to expand salmon production through cooperative 

 enhancement programs in a manner which helps achieve overall treaty goals, including equity, and 

 increases benefits to fishermen of both countries. 



For example, Alaskan and Canadian managers and fishermen on the northern panel mutually agreed 

 on an approach for a joint chum salmon management and enhancement program in the northern 

 boundary area. Unfortunately, to date, Canadian commissioners have not approved Canada's 

 participation in this program. 



