298 



But I am troubled if I sit here and listen to Alaskans tell us what 

 they are willing to agree to by their elected representatives and by 

 their representatives from non-elected groups, sometimes selected 

 and sometimes self-appointed groups. 



But they came here and told us what kind of tradeoffs you 

 wanted for the State of Alaska, and if you would do this we would 

 do that. National groups did so also. And now we are asked to 

 change that, and I am wondering upon what basis we are being 

 asked to change it. 



New information? Or is it just a different perception of the kind 

 of agreement that should have been struck? I think most of us 

 have some idea what was behind 50-year contracts and why they 

 were entered into, and why indeed those people who do not under- 

 stand why they were there in the first place might criticize them. 



I am not saying that a 50-year contract has to be lived up to un- 

 changed for 50 years if you can negotiate agreements. But I am a 

 little concerned about unilateral changes in agreements. We can 

 all try to change an agreement and sit down and work out the con- 

 ditions of that change. 



But I am very much concerned if indeed you try to change it uni- 

 laterally with people who depended upon the agreement. Even the 

 government ought to keep its bargains. Now, that is something I 

 think most Alaskans would agree with, and I suspect if I did not 

 like a bargain they had made I would try to undo it, too, because 

 none of us are pure in this question of objectivity. 



But I just note that the National Marine Fisheries Service a few 

 years ago was advocating the necessity of keeping all woody debris 

 out of such streams and the hand-cleaning of such streams to 

 remove large woody debris, and today their position is diametrical- 

 ly opposite that. 



I am not sure which is right or which is wrong. Maybe I do not 

 even read the record right. But it seems to me we do evolve in our 

 understanding of these issues, we do get new information. And I 

 am trying in the process of all of this to sort out what is new infor- 

 mation and what is old attitude, because if it is old attitude that 

 predates the agreements and the conditions that were established, 

 that is one thing. 



If it is new information that tells us, hey, we understand better 

 what the tradeoffs are today, we need to apply better information 

 today to the old agreements, to the old understandings, to the old 

 balances, I understand that. 



But I do not quite understand that, if indeed we are going to 

 change from the old tradeoffs that were established on the basis of 

 new information that is supplied to us, why we do not want to wait 

 and get better information. 



I see you waving your pen around there and I assume that it is 

 not because a fly is bothering you. 



Dr. Anderson. No. Mr. Chairman, could I just offer a thought 

 relative to — I am sorry, I am Dave Anderson with the Alaska De- 

 partment of Fish and Game. 



If I could just offer a thought relative to the contradiction that 

 you mentioned, that all of us share in our own personal interests, 

 which I would agree with. But in this particular case I think it is 

 probably fair to say that the Alaska Department of Fish and Game 



