23 



It is not without its trials and tribulations, but there is the po- 

 tential for success, which we have had some and are trying our 

 best to have more. 



Mrs. Unsoeld. But that facilitating role in the last two years 

 has come up with an egg; correct? 



Dr. Matlock. There has not been a long-term strategy reached 

 during the last two years. 



Mrs. Unsoeld. One of the issues associated with the Treaty and 

 the ongoing negotiation is the so-called "all-citizen suit." Bob or 

 Gary or someone, would you like to describe that for the record and 

 for the Committee? 



Mr. Turner. Thank you for this opportunity to walk into a 

 mousetrap. The "all-citizens suit" is very complicated, and I think 

 between Gary and me, we will try to make it as simple as we can. 



The issue arises out of the Indian treaty right within and among 

 Indian tribes in Washington, to harvest 50 percent of the stocks re- 

 turning through their usual and accustomed fishing areas. The 

 question arises, is a fish returning to Washington waters, but har- 

 vested by a U.S. citizen in Alaska, count as a non-Indian harvested 

 fish for the purposes of these non-Indian allocations? 



It was a huge issue in the negotiations leading up to the Treaty. 

 A stipulation among all of the parties, including Alaska, was filed 

 with the U.S. District Court settling the issue as to chinook. 



In the intervening years from 1985 to today, we have been get- 

 ting smarter about a lot of things, one of which is knowing now 

 that Fraser River sockeye are being caught in Southeast Alaska. 

 We did not know that at the time the Treaty was signed in 1985. 

 This Treaty places a ceiling on Fraser River catch, which, prac- 

 tically speaking, has been a 7-million fish catch over 4 years. The 

 issue then is, are the Fraser River fish harvested in Alaska by citi- 

 zens of the United States non-Indian fish for the purposes of alloca- 

 tion? 



If the answer to that is yes, then the non-Indian harvest of fish 

 in Washington has to account for that harvest in Alaska. If the an- 

 swer is no, then neither side pays for those fish and the harvest 

 in Washington is unaffected. That is hopefully a simple description. 

 I would ask if Gary James had anything to add to that. 



Mr. James. No, that pretty much covers it, and it gets to the base 

 of the issue that Representative Swift brought in here in his testi- 

 mony, and it is a very contentious issue, that there are agreements 

 that are, at this point have that issue at bay in other portions of 

 Washington and Oregon and Alaska. 



Mr. Turner. The case has been filed. It is scheduled for trial on 

 October 3rd. I believe most, if not all, of the parties to the litigation 

 have sought a delay in that trial date in hopes that we can resolve 

 it among ourselves within the context of treaty negotiations. 



Mrs. Unsoeld. Do we have confirmation that the Justice Depart- 

 ment has made that request? 



Dr. Matlock, do you know? 



Dr. Matlock. No, ma'am, I don't know, but I will do my best to 

 find out and get back to you as quickly as possible. 



Mrs. Unsoeld. Because we were assured that was going to be 

 part of the announcement when they didn't come up with a new 

 agreement. 



