119 



an instrument to formalize cooperation in the relevant fisheries. 



The Treaty in 1985 provided a greater opportunity to effectively conserve 

 and manage this joint resource. The Treaty did not alter anyone's rights, 

 nor did it settle issues of differing perspectives or interpretations. It 

 simply recognized that fair sharing and conservation were required for the 

 long-term health of the salmon resource. The overriding importance of the 

 Treaty from the fishermen's perspective was that it provided a bilateral 

 framework for conserving the salmon resource and optimizing production. 

 This approach was anticipated to provide increased benefits to fishermen 

 of both countries. Also of significant importance was a recognition that 

 traditional fisheries were legitimate and to be maintained, and that the 

 natural fluctuations in abundance in salmon populations were recognized 

 and had to be incorporated in an approach to managing and sharing the 

 resource fairly. 



Alaska fishermen felt the new negotiation process established under the 

 Treaty and U.S. Public Law 99-5 might be acceptable because: the Northern 

 Panel had a significant role in the process, and fishermen were to hold 

 many of the seats on the panel; the consensus process on the U.S. side 

 assured Alaska that they could not be "rolled" over allocation of the 

 harvests among the fleets and interest groups; and the undue disruption 

 and optimum production clauses of the Treaty gave Alaskan fishermen 

 assurance that their interests were protected. 



From the point of view of professional fishermen and professional 

 managers in Alaska, the expectation from the Treaty was that political 

 orientations would be set aside and the practical job of conserving, 

 managing and optimizing the salmon resource could be undertaken 

 efficiently. Alaska supported the Treaty in the hope that it would provide 

 a basis for improving cooperation between Canada and the U.S. in dealing 

 with a shared resource. Our belief was based on previous experience with 

 the constructive and successful cooperation by the two countries in 

 response to the disastrous decline of the Fraser River salmon earlier this 

 century. Importantly, it was expected and assumed that the Treaty 

 principles and provisions would be interpreted, and the fishery 

 arrangements negotiated between the two countries would be established, 

 consistent with the biological realities of the salmon populations and their 

 behavior. It was our hope that rigid, bureaucratic or ideological systems 

 would not be imposed, thus constraining legitimate access to and 

 management of the naturally fluctuating salmon populations. 



The Alaska Department of Fish and Game has a strong record of ensuring 



