In the post thread "Unfair Salmon Allocation" (on www.ifish.net), I mentioned that I would try to get to the bottom of why the Col. R. Tribes are getting a much bigger allocation than non-Indian fishers of chinook salmon, deemed harvestable by state and federal guidlines; which is obviously outside of the already controversial infamous Judge Boldt decision for Indian and non-Indian fishers to share 50% each of these fish. These principals apply to such as the Oly Pen Indian netting harvest as well. I appreciated recieving a very lenghthy letter back from Guy Norman, InterJurisdictional Fisheries Director, who has been at the forefront of negotiations with the Col. Tribal Commission and the Fed. NMFS. His letter is very lengthy and retorically optomistic, but unfortunately did not address the main question asked about the unfairness of allocation to us sportfishers in comparison to Indian allocation; of fish we largely paid for. I will re-print the 3 most pertinent paragraphs from his letter. After that I will re-print my return letter in a followup reply post.
Steve Hanson
ReelTruth1@aol.com

Steve:

Establishing appropriate fishing levels within conservation objectives for deppressed salmon and steelhead populations in the Coumbia River Basin is certainly a major task. The primary challenge in planning for this fall was to find ways to manage fisheries to access large numbers of returning hatchery salmon and wild Hanford Reach produced Upriver Bright fall chinook within the conservation limits of several stocks listed under the ESA.

The question of how to balance fish conservation, Treaty Indian fishing rights, and non-Indian fishing opportunity in the Columbis River has been historically settled in a series of court decisions and fish management plan agreements. The issues have become more complex in the past decade when many salmon and steelhead stocks were listed under the ESA, and even more complexity was added when the 10 year Colummbia Fish Management Plan expired after 1998. We are hopeful to sort out these complexities by negotiating longer term with Col. R. Fish Manage. Plan that will address winter, spring, summer, and fall fisheries. Our priority in a harvest agreement will be to assure that fishing levels will contribute to the rebuilding of the Col. R. naturally produced fish resourses, and then to provide stability in fishing opportunity for the public. Will we continue to advocate for a fair sharing arrangement between Treaty Indians and non-Indian fisheries.

We are hopeful that a longer term Col. R. Fish Manage. Plan can be agreed to in the near future. The harvest component of an agreement must be consistent with a longterm recovery of salmon and steelhead when combined with habitat, hatchery and hydro-powered actions, and should provide fair harvest opportunity for non-Indian and Treaty Indian fisheries. A longer term agreement should provide more stability to fisheries. We recognize a level of certainty is important to fishers in order to make plans for a fishing season.

Thanks for your interest in Columbia River salmon management.

Guy Norman
guy.norman@STATE.OR.US

* I think I can speak for most of us in expressing our appreciation to Mr. Norman and the ODFW & WDFW for their efforts toward the above stated objectives. At the same time it does not answer THE question of unfair allocation. And why they couldn't negotiate a better agreement with the "Unfair Pair" of the NMFS and Col. Tibal Comm.! To adhere to the principals laid down in the Judge Boldt decision it sure seems that a reduction of Indian harvest and an increase in non-Indian harvest (which is much less indescriminate to Fed. ESA fish, BTW) is very much in order. NO answer. Thus I mailed back another letter that I will share in the following post. - Steve




[This message has been edited by Reel Truth (edited 08-02-2000).]