73 



to the list in danger of not meeting the rebuilding objective. The basic cause has been a 

 lack of consensus, both at the domestic and bilateral levels, on the circumstances under 

 which ceilings could be altered. 



Lack of a common perspective on the interpretation of key policy elements, such as a 

 clear definition of rebuilding, has also been a major stumbling block. 



Washington representatives, in cooperation with Oregon and tribal counterparts, 

 committed a great deal of time and creative energy towards establishing guidelines for 

 changes to the fishing regimes under the treaty. Our underlying objective has been to 

 meet the rebuilding program. Since early in the process we have supported efforts to 

 develop an index approach to the management of the major mixed-stock fisheries 

 currently managed under ceilings. Our approach is based on a relatively simple premise: 

 the harvest rate in such a fishery should be decreased if abundance decreases to the 

 extent the rebuilding objectives are threatened, and it could go up if abundance increases 

 so long as rebuilding objectives are not compromised. 



Differences of view between Alaskan and Southern U.S. contingents on these issues have 

 hampered progress. In some years, the U.S. has failed to provide Canada with opening 

 negotiating positions on chinook until very late in the annual cycle, effectively preventing 

 meaningful negotiations with Canada. A consensus of the southern U.S., tribal and 

 Alaskan commissioners is required by the rules established in the Pacific Salmon Treaty 

 Act of 1985 (Public Law 99-15). 



In 1993, the State Department notified the U.S. Section of the Commission that given 

 the lack of progress on chinook the U.S. was in jeopardy of not fulfilling its international 

 obligations under the United States-Canada Pacific Salmon Treaty. Coming up with the 

 means to break potential impasse within the U.S. Section of the Commission is one of 

 the improvements necessary for progress. 



The equity issue has been a major obstacle in the chinook discussions. The majority of 

 stocks requiring reductions in exploitation rate in order to rebuild are taken in Canadian 

 fisheries off of the west coast of Vancouver Island and in Georgia Strait. Reductions in 

 these fisheries means reduced harvest of U.S. chinook stocks. Canada has insisted that 

 the equity implications be directly addressed as part of any proposal to make 

 management changes in response to conservation concerns. 



The Canadian view that they were at a disadvantage in terms of interceptions was 

 bolstered by increasing catches of Canadian sockeye caught incidentally in Alaskan pink 

 fisheries off of Noyes Island. Those increased catches corresponded to major increases 

 in the run strengths of both the pink and sockeye runs. In recent years, poor survivals of 

 U.S. chinook stocks contributing to the west coast of Vancouver Island have further 

 intensified the Canadian perspective that they are becoming increasingly disadvantaged. 



Robert Turner 



