13 



ered the information and they came up with conclusions that not 

 all of the scientists agree with. I can't say that they haven't looked 

 at the science. 



Senator Kempthorne. Mr. Bouck, I understand that you served 

 on the NMFS Dissolve Gas Panel. 



Mr. BouCK. I did, but I'm not sure if I still do. 



Senator Kempthorne. What has been your experience on that 

 panel? 



Mr. BouCK. I would have preferred that NMFS let us get orga- 

 nized, and attack the problem as we see fit rather than give us 

 parts of the problem to look at. I didn't attend the second meeting. 

 NMFS kept putting it off and they finally just asked me when 

 couldn't I attend and I said during elk season and I'll be darned 

 if they didn't hold the meeting during elk season. I don't know if 

 they were trying to tell me something or not but that's what hap- 

 pened. So I can't say anything about the second one. 



Senator Kempthorne. So that goes back to your comment that 

 you had made a series of recommendations and you felt that you 

 were "not welcome" on the NMFS panel? 



Mr. BouCK. Yes. I offered to delay my elk hunting trip and you, 

 coming from Idaho, know what a sacrifice that means. 



Senator Kempthorne. A lot of elk would have been happy with 

 that. 



[Laughter.] 



Mr. BouCK. I have argued that these kinds of committee func- 

 tions have to be open, they have to deal with the merits of the 

 issue, that no scientist who is well-qualified and has peer-recog- 

 nized expertise in the gas bubble disease issue should be excluded 

 as NMFS has done. My opinion was apparently not too well taken 

 but I think that we can do a lot better than we have done. 



Senator Kempthorne. You had referenced, Mr. Bouck, the idea 

 of opening up the closed shop and providing for peer review, and 

 Mr. Munay, you brought up peer review. I'd like to ask all mem- 

 bers of this panel about peer review. As we think about the reau- 

 thorization of the Endangered Species Act, changes that we may 

 wish to incorporate, how can we get pragmatic so that the scientific 

 community that is willing to serve and provide us science will feel 

 that it is worth their time and effort and that there is meaningful 

 peer review? Can you help us with the nuts and bolts? Mr. Mundy, 

 let's start with you but again, I'd like to hear from all of you on 

 this. 



Mr. Mundy. Senator, I serve on the peer review panel for the 

 Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council, which administers fish- 

 eries research funding from a trust fund established as a result of 

 the settlement in the Exxon Valdez oil spill. We have 10 years of 

 funding and we get to spend about $100 million a year on salmon 

 recovery in the Prince William Sound and Kodiak areas that were 

 impacted by the Exxon Valdez oil spill. 



The peer review process has been around for some time now. In 

 this past year, it's come together quite effectively. An analogous sit- 

 uation occurs in the Columbia Basin, and this is what you re look- 

 ing for in terms of nuts and bolts, because we have a pot of money 

 that is established that comes out every year; we have Federal and 

 State agencies who are primarily implementing the research with 



