184 



shores open to all American fishing boats. So the number of, and the 

 competition among, harvesters in Alaskan waters will only increase -- to the 

 detriment of both the resource and the industry -- if Northwest salmon 

 continue to decline. 



• Fishing war with Canada. In 1985. the United States and Canada signed 

 the Pacific Salmon Treaty for the good of both the fish and fishing in both 

 nations. The treaty's premise is simple, fair, and effective: everytime a US. 

 fishennan catches a Canadian salmon, a Canadian fisherman will catch a US. 

 salmon, and vice versa. 



Consequently the treaty works if and only if both nations produce enough 

 salmon. As a result. Canada and the US. put mutual commitments into the 

 Pacific Salmon Treaty to build up fish production. British Columbia, 

 particularly on the Fraser River, has done so. But after signing and ratifying 

 the treaty, the U.S. has allowed salmon numbers in Northwest watersheds, 

 particularly in the critical Columbia /Snake Basin, to slide even further 

 downward. The Canadians routinely point out that, while they left the Fraser 

 River free-flowing for fish, the Americans had built 13 hydroelectric dams 

 on the mainstems of the Columbia and Snake Rivers -- dams which are 

 grinding salmon runs inevitably into extinction. 



As a direct result, bilateral talks to re-negotiate the Pacific Salmon Treaty 

 broke down in 1994. Last summer Canada charged a $2000 fee on US. 

 fishing boats for round-trip passage passed through British Columbia waters 

 bound for Alaska. The Canadians have threatened to raise the fee to $10,000 

 in 1995. 



No end to this international salmon fishing war is in sight. To reach a new 

 Pacific Salmon Treaty with Canada, the US. must offer either substantial 

 cash compensation, or a credible plan to restore salmon runs in the 

 Northwest. The latter would benefit both nations. 



• Abrogation of 1855 Treaties. Finally, in 1855, the wars with the sovereign 

 American Indian Tribes ended in the Pacific Northwest with the signing of 

 several treaties. So central were salmon in the Tribes" culture, religion, and 

 way of life that the 1855 Treaties guaranteed to the Native Americans the 

 right to salmon fishing at "accustomed sites" in perpetuity. 



With salmon numbers already slipping in the 1960s, Tribes began testing 

 their 1855 Treaty rights with lawsuits which were consolidated in the 

 federal courts as U.S. v. Oregon -- still pending to this day. In each of the 

 next three decades (1974. 1985, and 1994), three different US. District 

 Judges (Boldt, Belloni, and Marsh) who successively held jurisdiction over 

 the case ruled that the 1855 Treaties legally obligate the United States to 

 put actual salmon in the rivers for the Tribes to catch. 



In other words, salmon extinctions would abrogate the 1855 Treaties. Given 

 three consecutive rulings in three consecutive decades, the court would 

 order reparations paid to the Tribes. These costs of salmon extinctions 

 would be substantial, annual, and forever -- because extinctions are forever. 



How substantial? Mr. Chairmcm, 1 can not and do not speak for the Tribes. 

 But in a 1994 out-of-court settlement of hydropower rights associated with 

 Grand Coulee Dam, the Colville Tribe of north central Washington State 

 received a lump sum of $50 miUion -- plus $15 million annually from BPA 

 indexed upward with the price of electricity in perpetuity. It seems a fair 

 and safe conclusions that for all the Tribes, salmon are far more sacred than 

 hydropower rights. 



