We greatly appreciate Mr. Norman's efforts to answer sportfisher questions about the Treaty fish allocation decision process, that is still ongoing. I have serious questions about the participant positions outlined in the above letter (which do not necessarily reflect Mr. Norman's own opinions). - The historical 1968 Judge Belloni ruling in U.S. vs Oregon stated that Columbia River Treaty Tribes were entitled to an equitable share of Columbia R. stocks of fish [salmon and steelhead], later defined in 1974 as "an even split". Why is sportfisher take of Willamette (& Cowlitz) stocks of fish brought into this equation in this letter, and in other venues particularly by Indians, when those stocks are clearly not included or a factor in the CRFMP for managing Col. R. allocations, based on Treaties only covering upriver Col. stocks? - Also mentioned as a factor for constraining sportfish take, including in the 2000 Fall Managage Agreement, were spawning escapement needs of stocks of lower Col. R. fish, which are not only outside the jurisdiction of the Treaties, but certainly can easily be avoided altogether as a factor by restricting sportfishing to above the Sandy and Washougal rivers! To quote "...the lower Col. chinook caught by non-Indians are not counted against the non-Indian share". Furthermore, it is hard to imagine the lower rivers not getting more than the needed escapement given the great upturn in all Col. salmon returns with the unexpectedly high ocean survival rates occuring! - In a context seemingly geared toward constricting sportfishing, it stated that wild upriver chinooks cannot be deciphered between healthy harvestable Hanford Reach stocks and ESA protected wild Snake R. stocks. Obviously that applies to the Indians as well! - In comparing the expected take of this fall's Col. fish, why were the non-treaty factor lower river stocks included in the 42,000 non-Indian expected take of fish; comparing that to an expected Indian take of 70,000 upriver fish? That's not an appropriate or fair comparison in regards to allocation negotiations, for which we fell far short anyway. - Why does the 2000 Fall Agreement take into account sportfish take of coho and steelhead when they are overwhelmingly of hatchery stock that we paid for? And the Indians also take those, as well as ESA steelhead in their nets! - Here's a good one concerning the vast majority of spring chinook take being allocated to the Indians despite the even 50/50 split court decisions. To quote "...the federal government determined the spring chinook allocation in the ESA permits they issued for the tribal and state fisheries. In the absence of an agreement, the federal goverment allocated the majority of the spring chinook ESA impacts [and fishing opportunity] to the tribes because they believe it consistent with the United States Treaty trust responsibility to the Columbia River Treaty Tribes". The reality is that was anything but consistent with the Treaties! Particularly when you consider the overiding ESA factor! Indian nets are indescriminate killers. Sportfishers can fish selectively by careful release of the half of the Col. springers that aren't fin clipped. Does the government take sportfishers as inept dimwits and the Indians as the "squeaky wheel"? Or what is going on here? It makes us wonder, and this is not an acusation, if the Indians have become big political campaign contributors by means of there huge gambling casino profits, thus making them constituents of powerful politicians in Wash. D. C.? Who "Coho" posted have handed down an edict to the NMFS to go along with this likely illegallity and clear unfairness!
With all due respect to the states of Oregon and Washington Dept. of Fisheries and their efforts on our behalfs, I certainly hope we have stronger legal and negotiation representation in ongoing and future litigation with the federal government and the Col. Tribal Commission! And that we get deserved credible answers to the above questions. -- Steve Hanson (in representation of a likely majority of sportfishers)