177 



IX 



are anticipated, and therefore it is necessary to view equity over 

 the long term based upon demonstrable trends rather than short- 

 term fluctuations. 



The United States section of the Commission has the responsibil- 

 ity for developing proposals to correct equity imbalance m tayor oT 

 the United States. In developing such proposals, imbal ances should 

 be addressed where possible through enhancement programs 

 ; ;ather than through adjusting established fisheries . 

 ^Article IV concerns the conduct of the fisheries and sets out th 

 prWedures to be followed to establish annual fishery regimes. Ea 

 Parky is to submit to the other Party and to the Commission a 

 report that will include basic statistics on each fishery, run/size, 

 spawning escapement (except for transboundary rivers, /where 

 under ^ticle VII the appropriate Panel is to perform this task), 

 estimateov total allowable catch (TAC), stock interrelanonships, 

 management and, as appropriate, domestic allocation/objectives. 

 The Commission is to solicit Panel views on the repor^and recom- 

 mend fisheryVegimes to the Parties. On adoption b/ the Parties, 

 these regimes are to be promulgated as chapters to Annex IV of 

 the treaty and rtnplemented by domestic federal,/€tate, and tribal 

 management authorities. Each Party is to notiC/ the other Party 

 and the Commission, of regulations and in-seaso^modifications. 



Under Article IV,\ach Party is to establish/and enforce the reg- 

 ulations to implement\the regime, except in/che case of the Eraser 

 River regime for which^Article VI establishes different procedures. 



Article V elaborates on\the Article III (Z) commitment to bilater- 

 al cooperation on salmon enhancement programs. Parties are to ex- 

 change information on theik own anticipated projects. Cross-refer- 

 ences to Article III reflect Niiutual /concern that fish from one 

 Party's enhancement project vNmuld/not "flood" the other Party's 

 fishery and unduly disrupt or Misplace an existing fishery. This 

 would arise when a Party, in omer to harvest its own stocks, will 

 necessarily have to harvest the/other Party's enhanced stocks. The 

 consultation provision of Artipe V and the forum provided by the 

 Commission should help theyParties avoid that result. 



Article VI establishes the^special provisions for the portion of the 

 Eraser River sockeye andypink fishery tm»t occurs within the agree- 

 ment area defined in Arinex II to correspond to the Convention 

 Area of the 1930 Erase/River Convention. Unlike other Panels, the 

 Eraser River Panel i^to propose pre-season\;egulations applicable 

 within the agreement area to the Commission- which would then 

 forward its proposals to the Parties. The proposed regulations 

 become effective/upon approval by the Party inN^hose waters the 

 regulations would apply. 'The Panel may also ordeV in-season man- 

 agement responses, which each Party is to implement unless the 

 regulation is/inconsistent with its domestic law. Articl^ IV (4) spe- 

 cifically reouires that Panel actions be consistent witnSestablished 

 United Sj^tes Indian treaty rights and domestic alloca^on objec- 

 tives. 



It is ythe treaty's intent to develop a Eraser River regime that en- 

 comp^ses all Eraser River pink and sockeye salmon, wherever 

 han^sted, though the special procedures apply only within\thfe 

 Eij^er River Panel area. Thus, Annex FV, Chapter 4 prescribed a 



gime based on the TAC of Eraser River sockeye and pink salmoi 



