It's frustrating, and I feel it's deceiving in the public service efforts to say, yes, we'll take your money so that you can fund our research projects, but we don't really want to work with you.

Using the best science available is an essential tenet for fisheries management and is necessary for maintaining healthy and sustainable stocks for generations to come.

So you mentioned on the state side the genetic material data from the feds is one of the key data points.

I remember speaking with Ted Stevens years ago about the whole premise that the Alaska Fisheries Science Center is not in Alaska, and I know that troubled him.

I'm assuming when NOAA funds it, they want to use it.

I do want to emphasize again for everybody here that literally at the witness table right now we have the top Federal official on these issues in the country and the top state official.

I believe--you know, and we are not the only river that has an Inter-Tribal Fish Commission.

So tools, right now you think you have adequate management tools? Again, and this is state and Federal.

The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation will now come to order.

So you think that that's set up to kind of skew the funding to the Lower 48 states?

Anyone else on that?

But do you think you are getting a full amount? Do you need more of that?

On the Federal level, laws like the Magnuson-Stevens Act led by Don Young and the late great Senator Ted Stevens, kicked out the foreign fleets and increased scientific investment by integrating vigorous science-based standards into the…

We are strong advocates for reduced--in fact, just this year we have reduced the bycatch levels that are allowed in the Bering Sea based on low abundance.

this is an official U.S. Senate Subcommittee hearing, the Subcommittee on Fisheries, NOAA and the Coast Guard.

I want to begin by apologizing. I was just up giving my remarks for the keynote address, and it went a little long.

Great. Thank you, Danielle.

I really want to thank our witnesses, which I think everybody is going to see, we have a world class, world class set of witnesses.

We want to help you certainly fill the vacancies, right, because I think that's really critical.

That's a lot harder to do, though, I take it?

That is going to happen, I can guarantee you, or it won't pass.

So let's be prepared and let's not make these issues divisive, I guess I would say, too.

So you think it's going pretty well?

Traditional ecological knowledge is not respected.

So you would say that is a critical gap that we should prioritize funding for?