93 



a tour year cycle. The proposal includes significant concessions to Canada on several issues 

 (e.«J., the treatment ot in-river catches by native-Canadians, distribution of U.S. harvest 

 across the many stocks that comprise the run. reduced U.S. harvest rates when run strength 

 is low). 



From the perspective of the State of Washington, the objectives for Fraser sockeye and pink 

 harvest must not be viewed in isolation. They are part of our overall goals which include as a 

 priority the reduction of Canadian interception ofcoho and chinook stocks. So long as those 

 goals are not compromised, we support efforts to improve U.S. Fraser fisheries. 



NOYES ISLAND HARVEST OF FRASER SOCKEYE 



The issue of U.S. harvest of Fraser sockeye is complicated by recent levels of catch of these 

 stocks in fisheries off of Noyes Island in southeast Alaska. These fisheries originally 

 developed in order to harvest .Alaskan pink runs. The Noyes Island fishery has been 

 harvesting increasing numbers of sockeye. There are three basic components to the sockeye 

 catch; Alaskan runs, returns to northern Canadian rivers (primarily the Skeena and Nass) 

 and the runs returning to the Fraser system. 



As the Fraser sockeye runs have increased, the numbers harvested in the Alaskan fishery 

 have also grown. VVhen the Treaty was signed, the potential catch off Noyes Island was 

 generally dismissed as being very small and intermittent (related to oceanographic 

 conditions and weather). In recent years the catches have continued to fluctuate from year 

 to vear, but they have been much larger than would have been anticipated. For example, 

 the catch over the 1989-91 seasons exceed 525.000 sockeye. 



The Fraser sockeye catch at Noyes Island is a major issue because of the historical context 

 of the Fraser Annex to the Treaty. Prior to the Treaty, the U.S. harvest was expressed as 

 a percentage of the harvest within the Strait of Juan de Fuca and the Strait of Georgia. 

 Over the years, extensive Canadian harvests developed in areas outside of this defined zone. 

 As a result, the U.S. harvest percentage declined as more and more Canadian harvest was 

 "taken off the top." Therefore, a major negotiating objective for the U.S. in developing the 

 1985 Treaty was the need to express the U.S. harvest of Fraser sockeye in terms of the total 

 harvest, wherever it occurred. 



Canada seeks to apply this provision to the catch of Fraser sockeye at Noyes Island, even 

 though this harvest was not known to exist when the Treaty was signed. The consequence 

 of the Canadian position is to determine how the Alaskan harvest of sockeye is to be 

 allocated under U.S. v. Washington . If these tish reduce the number of Fraser fish able to 

 be caught in Washington waters, the state contend.^ that they reduce both the Indian and 

 the non-Indian share accordingly. The tribes content that, since these fish are harvested by 

 non-Indians, they should not reduce the tribal share in Washington waters. The legal issue 



