150 



Law Ofhces of 



Theodore G. Kronmiller 



7799 Leesburg Pike 



Suite 900 N 



Falls Church, Virginia 22043 



(703) 847^784 

 (703) 847-6798 FAX 



Julv26, 1994 



The Honorable Douglas K. Hall 

 Department of Commerce 

 14th and Constitution Ave., N.W. 

 Washington, D.C. 20230 



Dear Doug: 



Subsequent to our meeting last week, my client, Robert Zuanich, Executive Director of Purse 

 Seine Vessel Owners Association, had the opportunity to speak with Mr. Robert Turner, Director of the 

 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Mr. Turner advised that, during a meeting with Canadian 

 officials on July 14, 1994, the U.S. put a new offer on the table for settlement of certain 1994 har%'est 

 arrangements under the Pacific Salmon Treaty. As we now understand the offer, it included a U.S. 

 harvest of Fraser River sockeye in Washington waters to be calculated according to the U.S. -Canada 

 allocation in the 1993 agreement, less 300,000 fish. Applying the currently expected 1994 total allowable 

 catch of 13.2 million to the 1993 har\est formula, the U.S. fishery in 1994 would catch appro.ximately 2.6 

 million sockeye. It seems that the 300,000 fish reduction from that amount would come solely from the 

 non -Indian share of the catch. 



1 was staggered to receive a report that the U.S. had retreated from its long-standing and fiilly 

 supportable proposal for the 1994 allocation, and moreover, had apparently done so at the cost of the 

 commercial sector, alone. Until the July 14 meeting, U.S. has maintained equal sharing, consistent with 

 understandings of the rights of treaty Indians and all-citizen fishers under U.S. v. Washington (a 

 provision in 1993 for a minor adjustment in favor of the treaty Indians had no practical effect). 



Since 1986, which marked the start of equal sharing in the Pacific Salmon Commission process. 

 U.S. Indian and non-Indian fishermen have harvested over 15 million sockeye, with a current cumulative 

 catch imbalance of only 60,000 fish. This has represented a remarkably even division of catch by these 

 two historical participants in the fishery. 



I find it deeply disturbing that the allocation proposal put forth on July 14 would permit the treaty 

 Indian fishery to exceed its 50% share. Were this proposal to be accepted by Canada and implemented by 

 the United States, the equitable linkage of tribal and non-tribal fisheries would be destroyed, and the 

 prevailing stability of that relationship would be upset. There would be immediate and intense 

 controversy, and a risk of confrontations on the fishing grounds, in the courtroom, and among the fishing 

 communities throughout Washington State. 



The claimed benefit to the State of Washington ft^om this offer would be a reduction of the 1994 

 coho harvest off the West Coast of Vancouver Island. I am strongly of the opinion that any burden 

 associated with achieving such a benefit should be shared equally by tribal and non-tribal fishers. 1 do not 

 believe that tribes have a har\est right or benefit which is paramount to their equal conservation 

 obligation as joint managers of Washington's salmon resource. I add that 1 do not believe that any trade- 



