Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB
[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][subsumed][subsumed][merged small][graphic][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][ocr errors][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed]

FIG. 95. Generalized ocean distribution of sockeye salmon from Asia, western Alaska and other North American areas.
Source: International North Pacific Fisheries Commission, Bulletin No. 34. 1976.

[graphic][ocr errors][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed]

Fi. 69. Diagram of release and recovery locations of 41 sockeye salmon tagged as juvenile fish during their first summer at sea and recovered 2 or 3 years later. Release years were 1958 and 1965 68; recovery years were 1960 and 1967 71 (Hartt and Dell, see footnote 6). Source: International North Pacific Fisheries Commission, Bulletin No. 34. 1976.

[blocks in formation]

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. Bonker?

Mr. BONKER. I would like to make it clear that my purpose for being here today is basically in suppport of the gentleman from California in finding a legislative remedy to a very difficult situation. But I do get a little alarmed when I see that the price of this legislative remedy may accrue to the outside fisherman which represents a viable, if not vanishing, breed of fisherman along Washington's coast.

Mr. Leitzell, you have made fairly clear, I think, in your prepared statement as well as your observations that the Management Council has attempted to reduce rather significantly the fishing in outside waters, in ocean waters.

On page 3, you state that it was determined that an emergency closure in the fishery conservation zone would have no significant impact on the spawning escapement of Chinook salmon in the Klamath River.

I think you covered this before but could you articulate once again what you mean by the statement?

Mr. LEITZELL. That particular statement, Mr. Bonker, was directed toward the controversy and concern last year. At that time when we were requested by the Department of the Interior to implement an emergency closure in the ocean fishery, the request came at a time during the fishing season where it would no longer have had an impact.

I think reductions in the ocean fishery certainly do have an impact if they are spread throughout the entire season.

The point you raised about the reductions in the ocean fishery, I think, are quite clear and I could provide a table to the Committee which compares the number of fishing days available under the 1979 amendment as compared to the previous year because the reductions are rather significant.

For example, off of California the commercial fishermen have been reduced by 30 days from 168 to 138.

[The table follows:]

Californiaa/

[blocks in formation]

Fishing Days Available Under the Management Measures of 1978 and 1979.

Cape Falcon to Canada/

1978

1979

California-Oregon Border to Cape Falcon, Oregon 1978 1979

Total

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

In 1978 the recreational fishing season south of Tomales Point, California, opened on February 18 and closed on November 12.

In 1978 commercial salmon fishing was prohibited north of Point Grenville, Washington, after Septebmer 15.

[ocr errors][merged small]

Note:

letters enclosed within parentheses are fishery management areas (43 FR 15632)

[blocks in formation]

Mr. LEITZELL. Recreational salmon fishermen in 1979 in the ocean fishery off northern California for the first time have seasonal restrictions and are now down from a full year fishery to 268 days. There are similar restrictions off the coasts of Oregon and Washington. I would emphasize those will mean a significant reduction in the amount of effort that is put into the ocean fishery. On the other hand, it is very difficult to determine what the absolute impact of that will be in terms of numbers of fish.

Mr. BONKER. It seems to me that the problem, regardless of whether it is in the Northwest or northern California, at least throughout the range of the Pacific Management Council's jurisdiction, is a matter of too few fish and too many fishermen. How we can develop a legislative remedy that would either reduce the number of fishermen or increase the number of fish. This is the problem that plagues us. Also, just the normal cycles exist, and a salmon is like any other agricultural resource. There are good years and bad years, except that when it comes to salmon fishing if there are bad years we look for a scapegoat. We have done this in the State of Washington with court decisions, we have done it with dams and logging and all the other factors that contribute to reduced runs.

But I maintain that the biggest problem is the one that exists. with Canada and interception. Until we can persuade salmon to turn left instead of right when they get to the mouth of the river, we are going to have that problem. In the past we have had tradeoffs with Canada that have not resulted in the best arrangement for coastal or inside fishermen. I understand almost 50 percent of the Chinook salmon that originate in Columbia River waters is caught by Canadians off Vancouver Island and other areas. Is that not true?

Mr. LEITZELL. Offhand I do not know if the figure is true, but the percentage is certainly very high. I would agree with you that the need for an understanding with Canada in terms of a formal agreement is essential.

The interceptions take place on both sides, and many of the interceptions of fish that migrate from the State of Washington take place north of Vancouver Island not by Canadians, but by Americans. It is an extremely complex problem.

Mr. BONKER. It seems to me when we passed the Fishery Conservation and Management Act we were to renegotiate all outstanding fishing treaties or agreements in order to bring them into compliance with our new law. Canada remains the one exception. We have yet to negotiate fully an agreement with Canada, particularly as it relates to salmon.

I just wonder if this committee could make a greater effort to influence the State Department in such a way that it can negotiate something favorable to our salmon fishermen. What is happening instead is we are pitting segments of the industry against one another, and even congressmen against one another.

I participated in some hearings on the Senate side and my colleague from Tacoma, Norm Dicks, is primarily concerned about inside fishermen while I am concerned about both inside and outside fishermen. But the real problem is more fundamental. I wonder what this committee could do to encourage the State De

partment to negotiate in such a way that we make available more salmon for both inside and outside fishermen, our domestic fishermen even if it is at the expense of Canadian fishermen.

Mr. MCCLOSKEY. If the gentleman would yield. Since this committee is carrying the Panama Canal legislation for the State Department, perhaps we should present a position to them quickly before that vote.

Mr. BONKER. I understand we have 5 hours.

Mr. BREAUX. The representative of the State Department this week in Canada is meeting with them about this problem. I would say to the gentleman most treaties obviously have implementing legislation. You have come to this committee and one of the things we plan to do in FCMA hearings we have scheduled for June will be to look into all the treaties with Mexico, with Canada and we will have an opportunity at that time I think to really exert a legitimate, proper amount of pressure that should be exerted.

Mr. BONKER. I appreciate the fact that the chairman of this subcommittee is both knowledgeable and concerned about regional fishery problems throughout the Pacific Management Council's jurisdiction. I think, with your permission we are going to proceed with further hearings on this subject.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. MCCLOSKEY. I just want to say that I note that some of our colleagues have cut in half the budget of the Department of State's office that deals with these matters and the majority party may have to propose some way to deal with its appropriation people. I understand the gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Alexander, is in somewhat of a controversy with the Department of State.

Mr. BONKER. We are just trying to take the cue from a minority party that wants to see a balanced Federal budget this year.

Mr. MCCLOSKEY. Mr. Leitzell, within the 3-mile limit of the State jurisdiction outside the mouth of the Klamath, what has the State of California done with respect to the commercial taking of fish this year?

Mr. LEITZELL. I think at least in the past there is an area within 3 miles around the mouth of the Klamath that has been closed to commercial fishing by the State of California. I think that has been done again this year, but I will have to check that and supply it for the record.

[The information follows:]

California is continuing during 1979 its ban on commercial slamon fishing in the ocean within a 3-mile radius of the mouth of the Klamath River.

Mr. MCCLOSKEY. I just wanted to make that clear to the gentleman from Oregon, concerning ocean fishing off the mouth of the Klamath, it is only beyond the 3 miles any commercial fishing takes place.

Mr. BONKER. The only correction I would have to that, it is the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. MCCLOSKEY. How many of our Klamath salmon in your judgment turn north and go up the coast, and within what range of the coast? Is there any knowledge of the Klamath salmon habits? What do they do? Do they just go straight out to sea 200 miles or do they turn north? And if so, within 3 miles or 12 miles?

[The following was submitted:]

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »