94 



presented is the so-called "all-citizens ' suit, referring to the argument that the Indian treaties 

 bound all citizens of the United States, not just Washington citizens, to provide the 

 opportunity tor Washington's tribes to harvest their share of salmon. 



TJie U.S. has taken the position that the harvest of Fraser sockeye at Nayes Island should not 

 affea the harvest of Fraser sockeye in Washington state. Washington strongly supports this 

 position. It is our view that provisions should be agreed upon within the Annex addressing 

 southeast Alaskan fisheries to address the Noyes Island catch of sockeye - it is, after all, 

 Alaskan fisheries that benefit from the interceptions. In other words, provisions addressing 

 other, significant Canadian concerns with the Alaskan fisheries would be sufficient to gain 

 concurrence that the Noyes Island interceptions of Fraser River sockeye would not affect 

 Washington catches. Failure to achieve such a solution could destabilize either nonhern 

 or southern fisheries. Litigation over the issue could have the same outcome. 



Absent a settlement of the issue in the context of PSC negotiations, litigation on the "all 

 citizens" suit as applied to Noyes Island is scheduled for trial in the fall of 1994. 



WASHINGTON'S NON-INDIAN COMMERCIAL FISHING INTERESTS 



In recent months. Washington's commercial fishing interests have put forth a variety of 

 arguments intended to increase the commercial harvest of Canada's Fraser River sockeye 

 and to protect the net fisheries of southeast Alaska - some 60% of the harvest in these 

 Alaskan fisheries is by Washington-based fishers. 



While I do not begrudge the position of Washington commercial fishers in their attempt to 

 increase their harvest in Alaska and from Canada's Fraser River, I am suspicious of some 

 of the arguments used by the industry to back their beliefs. I am skeptical of a belief that 

 Canada will reach back to the 1930s' investment of the U.S. to provide a quid pro quo for 

 increased U.S. harvest of salmon in the 1990s. Such a rationale seems to fall into the 

 category of "preferred" but not "viable" U.S. positions. 



As a result, this argument again would likely lead us to the status quo. 



Similarlv, the so-called "pasturage" debate -- that Alaska is due increased harvest of 

 Washington and Canadian stocks merely because these fish spend time rearing in the Gulf 

 of Alaska - has yet to be adopted as a U.S. position. I believe this is a very risky theory - 

 - one can imagine how devastating it would be if applied to Columbia River chinook stocks. 



Both Governor Lowry and I have met with Washington's commercial fishers, including 

 specifically tho.se who harvest in southeast Alaska. They know that Canada is looking for 

 changes in the southeast Alaska fishery and the Fraser - that is, in fact, why they are so 

 concerned. 



Our commercial fishers know too that our negotiating strategy does not desire to place their 



