121 



northern boundary area. Salmon that happen to spawn in Canada occur 

 only as incidental fractions in our fisheries. This is a point which 

 distinguishes northern boundary area fisheries from fisheries in the south, 

 particularly on the West Coast of Vancouver Island. There, successive 

 fisheries are focused on the same stocks, thus requiring careful attention in 

 order to sustain the resource. 



The magnitude of the resource in Southeast Alaska is such that it supports 

 a professional fishery. Those fishermen are not oriented to over- 

 aggressive fishing patterns. They understand their futures depend both on 

 adequate escapements and the controlled harvest of available surpluses. 

 Both of these considerations bear on ensuring the maximum long term 

 health of the resource. Underharvest also disadvantages salmon stocks. 

 The fishing fleet in Alaska accepted serious restrictions during cycles of 

 poor survivals and poor returns. With abundance up to historic levels, 

 those fleets require access to Southeast Alaska stocks. It is not acceptable 

 to interrupt that access due to circumstances elsewhere which are wholly 

 unrelated to the fishery conditions in this region. Access also cannot be 

 severely restricted due to the presence of a small fraction of salmon 

 spawned in British Columbia. 



We recognize that abundance of salmon may differ radically between 

 regions, but as long as the stocks are not related, failures in one area 

 should not be permitted capriciously to impact and/or obstruct the access 

 to great salmon abundance elsewhere. It is not fair, equitable, reasonable, 

 or acceptable to require restrictions on healthy, traditional fisheries as a 

 consequence of resource failures in wholly distinct fisheries and stocks. 

 The Treaty fails its initial intent and promise if it is driven by localized 

 conservation problems with no more than an orientation to "sharing the 

 pain". That Treaty promise was for optimizing salmon production which 

 can occur only with the freedom to respond appropriately to fishery 

 conditions as they occur, without reference to scarcity or abundance 

 elsewhere and free from the perverse contamination of political or 

 ideological agendas. 



We have been asked whether unilateral fisheries management of mixed 

 stocks is possible. The answer for this region is affirmative. Whereas it 

 might be preferable to have a formal working relationship with Canada to 

 address issues of mutual concern on commingled salmon stocks, the nature 

 of Southeast Alaska and Northern British Columbia fisheries is such that 

 unilateral management is both possible and practical. The health and well- 

 being of the stocks can be maintained without a formally structured 

 arrangement with Canada as occurred for the 100 years prior to the 



