13 



lemma, or addressing those problems to the real beneficiaries and 

 the causes of those declines. 



A comprehensive, long-term approach is absolutely essential to 

 get us out of this mess we are in. Together with our co-managers 

 from the State resources agencies, we are working on just such an 

 approach. Specifically, we are developing a comprehensive frame- 

 work, which we call for the sake of the salmon, that we will be dis- 

 cussing with many of you and other public officials here and in the 

 region over the next several days and weeks, to solicit advice and 

 support. 



While I do not want in any way to diminish the importance of 

 today's topic, which is improving the implementation of the Pacific 

 Salmon Treaty, I do want to impress upon you that this is but one 

 piece of a much larger effort to save the salmon. 



Let me now get to the specific issue at hand. The need for the 

 Pacific Salmon Treaty stems from one simple fact; salmon do not 

 respect boundaries. That was true in 1985 when the Treaty was 

 signed, and it is true today. For this simple reason, management 

 of the salmon requires interjurisdictional cooperation. 



We cannot hope to manage these stocks for optimum production 

 if the various parties that afi'ect them are working at cross-pur- 

 poses. We can debate the specifics of how that cooperation should 

 occur, but there can be no question about the necessity of the Trea- 

 ty. In summary, the answer to your first question is no, unilateral 

 fisheries management of salmon will not work, at least not for long. 



In 1985, the tribes' primary goal for this Treaty, which exists 

 largely as a result of the focused, sustained efforts of the tribes and 

 their regional co-managers, was to rebuild depressed stocks and 

 sustain production at optimum levels to support the fisheries upon 

 which our way of life depends. That still is our primary goal. 



Unfortunately, progress in this regard has been much slower 

 than we had envisioned. In some cases, there has been no progress 

 at all; and in a few cases, they actually have gotten worse. This has 

 been the biggest disappointment of all. 



Another goal of the tribes was to further the process of institu- 

 tionalizing our involvement in fisheries management and fisheries 

 policy. Our historical experience with having others make decisions 

 on our behalf has reinforced the necessity for looking out for our- 

 selves. This means direct, substantive tribal involvement is essen- 

 tial, and we will continue to insist upon it. 



In the Pacific Salmon Commission forum, we have been reason- 

 ably successful in accomplishing this goal. We are represented and 

 actively participate at all levels of the commission structure, both 

 policy and technical. It is because of our historical experiences of 

 being shut out of the decisionmaking that we will be very cautious 

 about relinquishing any control over this process. 



Yet another goal was to improve the science of fisheries manage- 

 ment, and how it is utilized in resource decisionmaking. Our re- 

 sults, to date, have been mixed. While we have made great strides 

 in the technical area, which is one of the often overlooked positive 

 results of this Treaty, we do not do a very good job of using this 

 improved information to make decisions. This is a failure at the top 

 of the organization, a failure demonstrated most clearly by the de- 

 cision gridlock at the policy level. 



