record runs for 10 of the last 14 years. Last year we harvested 197 

 million fish. And I can remember in territorial days, when the Fed- 

 eral Government was the manager, we had only 30 to 40 million 

 fish, and we were closing our season to maintain the runs. 



In southeastern Alaska, the Alaska experience continues to be 

 very good. We have 2,500 anadromous streams. Twenty-two of 

 those are in decline, and nine of those are in logged areas, and 13 

 are in wilderness areas. So we have a pretty good record of mixing 

 fish production and other uses. 



I want to emphasize, Mr. Chairman, that I am not arguing 

 against efforts to help these Columbia and Snake River fish. I fully 

 understand the importance of doing so. My point is the science. We 

 are not using sound science for the Snake River fall chinook. 



That fact affects Northwest rate payers as well as fisherman all 

 the way to Alaska, and creates questions about the basis for ac- 

 tions taken on other stocks on the Columbia River. 



My main reasons for the statement that sound science is not 

 being used are as follows. First, in 1992, when stocks were listed 

 as threatened rather than endangered, the National Marine Fish- 

 eries Service justified its decision by pointing to a considerable in- 

 crease in the number of adult fish migrating past lower Granite 

 Dam in 1991. Today the Agency wants to ignore both its previous 

 position, and the fact that those numbers have continued their up- 

 ward trend. The number dropped somewhat last year from the year 

 before, but it is still the sixth highest in the last 15 years. 



Furthermore, the average number of fish, that is, the average 

 number returning yearly over a given period of time, is also in- 

 creasing, and that is good news. 



The second reason that I claim we are not using sound science, 

 involves the function of the Endangered Species Act. The act is 

 meant to protect species, sub species, and distinct populations, be- 

 cause they may have unique value either ecologically or as a source 

 of genetic material. 



For the Snake River fall chinook salmon, however, protection is 

 given only to fish that spawn naturally, not bred from those fish 

 collected by the Lyon's Ferry Hatchery Program. And that makes 

 simply no sense at all. 



The hatchery stock is the most genetically pure Snake River fall 

 chinook. Natural spawners are known to be infiltrated by strays 

 from other areas. 



In fact, there are some who say the naturally spawning group 

 may be so diluted that it should not even qualify for ESA protec- 

 tion either as a sub species or a distinct population. If any group 

 should be counted tow ard the genetic preservation goal of the Act, 

 it should be the more pure stock. 



Finally, Mr. Chairman, by not counting former hatchery fish, 

 that means the number used to determine Endangered Species Act 

 status is artificially deflated. The result is even greater restrictions 

 on fisherman and river users. 



In our State of Alaska, fisherman last year saw the chinook har- 

 vest reduced by 23,000. Mr. Chairman, that was a loss worth mil- 

 lions of dollars, to allow a total of just 23 Snake River chinook 

 salmon to pass by, and most or those 23 probably died anyway. 



