66 



improving implementation of the Pacific Salmon Treaty -- I do want to impress upon you 

 that tliis is but one piece of a much larger effort to save the salmoiL 



The need for bilateral cooperation 



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

 stems from one simple fact: the salmon respect no 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 inter-jurisdictional cooperation. We cannot hope to manage these stocks 

 for optimum production if the various parties that affca them are working at cross 

 purposes. We can debate the specifics of how that cooperation should occur, but there can 

 be no question about the necessity of it In summary, the answer to your first question is 

 "no" -- unilateral fisheries management of salmon will not work, at least not for very long. 



Tribal goals for the Pacific ^s almon Tr eaty: a progress repon 



In 1985, the tribes' primary goal for this treaty - which exists largely as a resuJt of the 

 focussed and 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 

 Ln this regard has been much slower than we envisioned. In some cases, there has been no 

 progress at all; in a few cases, they acmaUy have gotten worse. This has been the biggest 

 disappointment of all. 



Another goal of the tribes was to further the process of instimtionaiizing our 

 involvement in fisheries management and fisheries policy. Our historical experience with 

 having others make decisions on our behalf has reinforced the necessity of looking out for 

 ourselves. This means direct, substantive tribal involvement is essential, and we will 

 continue to insist upon it. In the Pacific Salmon Commission forum, we have been 

 reasonably 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 decision making that we will be 

 very cautious about relinquishing any control over this process. 



Yet another goal was to improve the science of fisheries management, and how it is 

 utilized in resource decision making. Our results, to date, have been mixed. While we 

 have made great strides in the technical arena - which is one of the often overlooked 

 positive results of this treaty -- we do not do a very good job of using this improvetl 

 information to make decisions. This is a failure at the top of the organization, a failure 

 demonstrated most dearly by the decision gridlock at the policy level 



Obstacles to achieving U.S. positions 



This leads me to your questioQ about obstacles to achieving a unified f>osition. We fail 

 to reach a unified position because we have conflicting interests and disagree on the 

 specific meaning of some rather fundamental elements of the Treaty. The most serious 

 substantive element is the principle of equity - the international allocation standard of the 

 Treaty. While none of us on the United States side buys into the Canadian view, we have 

 been unable to move forward on this issue in the United States Section because of our 

 inability to resolve our conflicting internal views. 



Testimony of Gerald I. James, Tribal PSC Commissioner 

 Page 2 of 4 



LR26;072994 GUlatl 



