COM MENTORS: Is this the right list of objectives? If these objectives were 

 accomplished, would fish and wildlife governance be significantly Improved? Are 

 there other objectives that should be on this list? 



V. Proposals for governance reform 



To accomplish these objectives the Council sees three basic possibilities for 

 governance reform: one involving no legislation, one involving limited legislation and one 

 involving broad legislation. 



In reviewing these possibilities, two points merit special emphasis: First, although 

 these alternatives appear to correspond to workshop alternatives one, two and three, in 

 fact each incorporates various features of the revised workshop alternatives. Second, the 

 alternatives are not necessarily mutually exclusive. In particular, many of the steps 

 outlined in the first alternative should be taken regardless of whether legislation is 

 pursued. 



As readers review the first alternative, they should ask whether the region can 

 accomplish the stated objectives with existing authorities. If not, consider what are the 

 weak links in existing governance and, finally, what assistance, legislative or otherwise, is 

 needed to achieve the objectives? 



A. No legislation 



There was agreement among workshop participants that fish and wildlife decision 

 makers should convene, resolve important differences between fish and wildlife plans and, 

 especially, develop a cohesive and accountable implementation structure. 



1. Convene principals . 



The Council invites commentors to consider two possibilities for convening 

 decision makers: 



A meeting of sovereigns. The Council or any other pany could convene a 

 meeting of sovereigns with jurisdiction over fish and wildlife: that is, the federal 

 government, the four Northwest states and the region's Indian tribes. Canadian, 

 environmental, utility and other river interests could be included in a consultative capacity. 

 The sovereign interests could organize a process to address critical planning and 

 implementation issues. The sense of the workshop participants was that such a process 

 would have to be conducted on a basis of equality -- in the sense that no single party could 

 dictate to the others. At the same time, it must be recognized that some interests have 

 legal responsibilities that others do not and this puts a special burden on the process. As 

 the workshop facilitator put it, "[t]he National Marine Fisheries Service in particular must 



