154 



COLUMBIA RIVER INTER-TRIBAL FISH COMMISSION'S 



RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS PRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN STUDD»S 



LETTER OF JULY 20, 1993 



1. How arc the activities or the tribes affecting (either positively or negatively) the 

 recovery of salmon? 



The activities of the tribes have had little effect on the recovery of the salmon as evidenced by 

 the continuing decline of the resource. Examination of tribal input into the various recovery 

 issues helps shed light on the reasons why the tribes have been ineffective. 



HARVEST - Since the 1960's, the tribes have been active in the harvest arena and much 

 progress has been made in this area. During the early years, progress was made through the 

 federal courts. Once their treaty fishing rights were firmly recognized by the courts, the tribes 

 acquired the technical expertise to evaluate the various issues surrounding harvest. In order to 

 ensure that all harvesters shared in the conservation burden, the tribes spent several years and 

 many dollars to establish what we call the "Ocean Connection." This simply means that non- 

 Indian harvesters in the Pacific Ocean must not catch more than the non-Indian share of the 

 salmon bound for the upper Columbia and its tributaries. The effect of this ruling was to 

 guarantee that the tribes' share of any harvestable fish, plus the needed spawning escapement, 

 would escape the ocean fisheries off the shores of Oregon and Washington. In some years, the 

 shares of both parties have been very small - as our fisheries have always been curtailed to 

 provide for spawning escapements. 



As the tribes began to be accepted at the harvest management tabic by the other fishery agencies, 

 progress in settling harvest disputes moved from the courtroom to the negotiation table. 

 Following the line of the "Ocean Connection," the tribes next worked, for nearly ten years, to 

 finalize the United States/Canada Pacific Salmon Interception Treaty. New processes were 

 established and the tribes once again are active participants. On the Columbia River, the tribes 

 established themselves as active participants in the management of inriver fisheries. Like the 

 ocean fisheries, conflicts inriver are more often handled by negotiation than litigation. 



The tribes have always practiced conservation. We have fought hard to achieve integrated 

 harvest management. Still, during the period of seeming victories in the harvest arena, the 

 resource was continuing to dwindle. Thus, time and time again, we have done as we have been 

 asked, and have reduced our harvests to provide for the survival of our treasured resources. We 

 now realize that the fishers have been the only ones who have shouldered the burden of 

 conservation. 



PRODUCTION - The Columbia River treaty tribes began their active involvement in modern 

 fishery management with the fish production cards stacked against them. Since the passage of 

 the Mitchell Act in 1938 the state and federal fishery agencies had developed a basin-wide 

 production program that continued to supply non-Indian fisheries despite the dams and habitat 

 degradation, but at a significant cost to tribal fisheries and to the naturally-spawning salmon that 

 they depended upon. Although the Columbia River Tribes have tried to establish their positions 



