127 



primarily political pressures superseding biological considerations. It 

 required in some cases in excess of 20 years to rebuild the resources once 

 brought under state control. Any active or implied participation by the 

 federal government in managing or affecting Alaskan salmon resources 

 will meet spirited opposition. 



When the 1985 Treaty was signed, together with the accompanying 

 implementing legislation, a necessary condition from the point of view of 

 Alaska for participating in this Treaty was that the federal government did 

 not play an integral role in the decision-making process. The requirement 

 from Alaska as well as the other U.S. participants was that those agencies 

 and individuals who were knowledgeable in depth regarding the salmon 

 resource in this region would be accorded the authority to reach 

 appropriate decisions under this Treaty. Fisheries and the status of the 

 fisheries resources would define the range of legitimate considerations 

 under the Treaty - not a more broad forum for trading international 

 interests with Canada. From the perspective of the fisheries under the 

 Northern Panel, the salmon resources since the time of the Treaty have 

 been managed and have prospered in a fashion that would meet anyone's 

 standards for performance consistent with the conservation, optimum 

 production, and equity principles of the Treaty. That the resource and the 

 fisheries have not conformed to ideological imperatives of the Canadian 

 government in Ottawa or desires for the restructuring of Alaskan fisheries 

 should not obscure a clear view of the success and well-being of the 

 resource on both sides of the border in the northern boundary area. In 

 this respect, the Treaty from a fishermen's perspective has been a success. 

 The practical fishery questions have been handled successfully, there have 

 been no new or re-directed fisheries in Alaska, the resource and 

 professional understandings of the managers have prevailed, and 

 extraneous political demands have not succeeded in overriding this 

 approach. No change in structure which would alter this balance between 

 professional management and political considerations is acceptable to 

 professional fishermen, we believe, on either side of the border. 



The federal government should not be accorded the authority to negotiate 

 unilaterally on any topic in the Treaty. Equity as a distinct subject should 

 be returned to the Commission. The federal government should continue 

 its role of attempting to foster consensus among the U.S. parties. It is our 

 opinion that the government represented by David Colson during the time 

 since 1985 has generally functioned well in this capacity. 



The federal government should use its resources and options, including the 

 Pelly amendment, to "encourage" Canada to behave appropriately 



10 



