Mr. Guy Norman, Director of Interjurisdictional Fisheries (who rep.'s the state vs the NMFS/Col. Tribes in negotiations), has sent his awaited reply to the questions raised on this public forum about the unfair salmon allocations favoring the Columbia River Tribes. The outcome of Oregon and Washington state lawsuits filed against the Fed. Government have far reaching consequences, beyond just the Columbia R. and NW Washington Indian Treaty fishing activities. - I want to thank Mr. Norman for his considerable efforts, both on behalf of NW sportfishers and for his lengthy reply within. This letter of explaination may have raised as many questions as it has answered (not the fault of Mr. Norman). I will post a followup reply concerning the questions it has raised for us. I have also written the NMFS for their side of this ongoing story and we await that reply. Letter:

To: Steve Hanson ( Reel Truth )

From: Guy Norman ( ODFW )


As I indicated to you in our phone conversation, Indian and non-Indian harvest of Columbia River salmon and steelhead is an ongoing issue that is a major focus for ODFW. We are struggling with managing for ESA listed stocks while experiencing a significant improvement in the returns of other stocks of salmon and steelhead. We are also dealing with how to fit a longer term harvest management plan into the context of an overall recovery plan for Columbia Basin salmon and steelhead. In response to your request for further information regarding recent allocation decisions between Indian and non-Indian fisheries, I have provided some historical background as well as more current information. Hopefully this information will be useful for you to provide more clarification to others, or at the minimum demonstrate the complexity of the harvest sharing issue. The numbers I represent here reflect pre-season forecasts and actual numbers will be monitored by the Columbia River Compact during the course of the fall season.


In 1968 Judge Robert Belloni ruled, in the U.S. v. Oregon case, that state management practices failed to meet the Columbia River Treaty Tribes fishing rights and that the tribes were entitled to a fair and equitable share of the harvestable portion of the runs, later defined in 1974 as an even split.This decision followed on the heels of the Judge Boldt sharing decision in the U.S. v. Washington dispute pertaining to Puget Sound and Washington Coastal Tribes.

A federal court Judge ordered the development of the Columbia River Fish Management Plan(CRFMP) in 1983 in an effort to resolve fish management issues that were constantly brought before the federal court following the 1968 ruling. The CRFMP was intended to focus on rebuilding Columbia River fish runs and fairly sharing the harvest between Indian and non-Indian fisheries. The CRFMP was completed in 1988 and addressed management of seven runs of salmon and steelhead as well as shad, walleye, sturgeon, and lamprey. The CRFMP expired January 1, 1999.

The 1988-98 CRFMP took almost five years to negotiate, and attempted to address the specific needs of Indian and non-Indian fisheries within the intent of the previous court decisions. For example; 1) The cultural value of ceremonial and subsistence spring chinook to the Tribes was reflected in the upriver spring chinook allocation in Columbia River fisheries. Non-Indian fisheries were able to maintain significant spring chinook access by targeting on Willamette and Cowlitz stocks, which are not subject to allocation because they are produced below Bonneville Dam. 2) The non-Indian fisheries were allotted the majority of the coho to enable significant ocean and Columbia River fisheries to continue. In exchange for a greater share of coho, the states agreed to transfer some coho hatchery production to tribal areas above Bonneville Dam. These are just a couple of examples of many trade-offs that were made in the CRFMP to enable management that was fair in a broad context, and tailored to meet unique needs of the state and tribal parties to U.S. v. Oregon.

Since 1985, annual negotiations have been conducted to develop harvest agreements for fall chinook. The annual agreements attempt to address the specifics needs of individual stocks based on their status for that year, and also the Indian and non-Indian fishery needs for that particular year. These agreements have also contained hatchery production elements in addition to harvest.

In many years there are other constraints that overide the 50/50 sharing intent for upriver fall chinook. In recent years, including this fall, spawning needs for Lower Columbia River chinook have constrained fishery harvest before non-Indian fisheries could reach 50 percent of the upriver chinook.

The harvest sharing formula for fall chinook includes tribal, sport and commercial fishing in the Columbia River downstream of Priest Rapids Dam, as well as U.S. ocean fisheries south of the Canadian border. The formula is complex in that it only includes those fish destined for areas above Bonneville Dam and is adjusted for spawning value equivalents depending on where they are caught. The lower Columbia produced chinook caught by non-Indian fisherman are not counted against the non-Indian share.

The management of ESA listed Snake River wild fall (SRW) chinook has added another element of complexity to the harvest sharing formula. In the past, the harvestable number of Upriver Bright (URB) fall chinook was based on the number of fish returning above the spawning escapement goal at McNary Dam, which assures adequate numbers of wild fall chinook will return to the the Hanford Reach stretch of the Columbia River to spawn. The Hanford Reach wild fall chinook are extremely healthy and currently provide the most fall chinook to Columbia River fisheries, including hatchery produced fish. Since the Hanford URB and SRW return at the same time, and both are wild, they cant be separately identified in Columbia River fisheries that take place downstream of the Snake River.

This fall, the forecasts indicate that over 200,000 URB fall chinook will return to the the Columbia River. Included in the URB forecast is about 150,000 URB from the Hanford Reach, Deshutes River, and Priest Rapids Hatchery that could be harvested. This level of harvest could take place and leave enough fish to meet Hanford wild chinook, Deshutes wild chinook, and Priest Rapids Hatchery chinook spawning goals. However, ESA limitations on SRW chinook allow for only 65,000 of the 150,000 URB fall chinook to be harvested. Therefore, the total URB chinook harvest must be reduced to meet Snake River wild fall chinook spawning needs specifically. How that reduction is applied to Indian and non-Indian fisheries, when the CRFMP harvest sharing formula was based on the McNary Dam spawning goal, is the unresolved issue we will continue to address.

The 2000 Fall Management Agreement was a compromise reached by the U.S. v. Oregon Parties to enable fall fisheries to proceed with ESA permits from the federal government. The non-Indian share of the upriver chinook is less then the states were negotiating for in 2000, however we did not negotiate for a full 50 percent this year due to the need to limit harvest of lower Columbia River wild fall chinook.

The total non-Indian catch of fall chinook in the mainstem Columbia River this fall is expected to be 42,000, including lower Columbia and upper Columbia fall chinook stocks. The sport fishery is expected to harvest 25,000 fall chinook, including 5,000 from the Hanford Reach sport fishery. Another 12,000 Columbia River fall chinook are expected to be caught by non-Indian fisheries off the Washington and Oregon Coasts. The Treaty Indian fishery is expected to harvest 70,000 fall chinook this year.

The 2,000 Fall Agreement also includes harvest of coho and summer steelhead in fall fisheries. Non-Indian mainstem Columbia River fisheries are expected to catch 165,000 coho and about 7,000 summer steelhead. As with past Agreements, hatchery planning was an issue in negotiating the 2000 Agreement. The Agreement includes plans for use of fall returning hatchery salmon and steelhead in tributaries above Bonneville Dam.
Last spring, we could not reach an Agreement with the tribes concerning allocation of the upriver spring chinook return. As a result, 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 government allocated the majority of the spring chinook ESA impacts to the tribes because they believed it consistent with the United States Treaty trust responsibility to the Columbia River Treaty Tribes. *

The Spring season was unsettled last year due to several factors: 1) An upriver return that was the largest in over 20 years, but co-mingled with listed spring chinook. 2) Expired Agreements that allocated upriver spring chinook impacts, 3) Non-Indian mainstem Columbia River fisheries being minimal or closed for several years because of small Willamette River hatchery returns as well as poor upriver returns, and 4) Tribal Ceremonial and subsistence priority for spring chinook.

It is now necessary to work towards a Spring Chinook Management Agreement in an environment of improved upriver and lower River hatchery runs that are returning with listed wild spring chinook. For several recent years non-Indian fisheries were as limited by poor hatchery spring chinook returns as they were by wild fish management constraints. Last spring we experienced a strong upriver spring chinook hatchery return and an improved Willamette River spring chinook hatchery return. We are already focusing on next springs management with an objective of reaching an Agreement that will provide fair non-Indian fishery access to the harvestable hatchery spring chinook.

We do expect a large return of upper Columbia and Snake River hatchery spring chinook in 2001. The non-Indian fisheries in the Columbia River next spring will not only be associated with the prospects for a U.S. v. Oregon
Agreement, but also with the allocation of Willamette Spring chinook between Columbia River and Willamette Basin fisheries. The Oregon Fish and wildlife Commission this winter will determine the Willamette spring chinook allocation.

Guy Norman
Interjurisdictional Fisheries Director
E-mail - guy.norman@state.or.us

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)

Man thats a confusing mess. I always assumed it was a much more equitable split. Cant these fishing rights be traded for casino and gambling rights??? Who's buying all of the fish the tribes are taking? Cut off the demand and the supply will diminish... Sport fishermen need to do a better job of organization and applying political pressure. Maybe some type of liscense boycott, similar to the gas outs, where people dont purchase their licenses on the first couple of days their out. You cant tell me they dont count on that revenue coming in, hell its probably spent before they get it....

I applaud your efforts RT. Keep it up!

Treaty rights. Although I do have friends who are of Indian ancestery and respect the rights the government gave them more than 100 years ago, I dont believe that things are always what they should be. The original treatys are at http://members.tripod.com/rampy/treatys.html read them and post you views. I have gone over and over these treatys and can't seem to figure out why and how things have changed so much in the original wording of the treatys. Such as no alcohol on the res but yet you can buy discount liquor on some of the reservations, how according to the treatys there will be no trading with other people but yet the tribes at hoodsport and others, strip the eggs out of the hens and leave the rotting carcasses lay to sell the eggs to Japan?. They never had gill nets across the river a hundred years ago that does not to seem traditional to me but yet it happens. shell fish? I take the treatys to read no harvest on private property but look what happened?
But to be fair we didn,t over a hundred years ago (white man) damm all the rivers for cheap power blocking the migration of anadromous fish, strip the forests for wood thus creating a moonscape enviroment washing silt down the rivers sealing the fate of the anadromous fish who live in the rivers, As we do now. Some where there has to be a happy medium and its up to us to find it. Not for us but for our children and their children, we need to somehow work together without the polititians who care for nothing but your vote and more tax money in my opinion.
RAMPRAT

You are right Ramp. Good take. All of the above wrongs need to be righted. But the "2 wrongs don't make a right" wisdom applies here. Allowing the Indians to go sooo far outside of the original Treaties as times evolved were perhaps wrong. For the Fed.s to overide modern court rulings and fairness in strong favor of the Indians, and even their own ESA guidelines, thinking these strong wrongs somehow makes a right is ...... definitely wrong! - Gee, how many times can "right" and "wrong" be written in one post.

Bringing this thread back up near the top of the BB for Salmo G to review.

This only sounds confusing its all pretty basic negotiating it goes this far and then you get to the next level which is International, "the United States and Canadian Salmon Sharing Agreement" now that arena ladies and gentlemen is confusing and I am sure you dont want to go there!
Thank you for the effort R.T. good info, and be sure and remember to keep ducking when "old siscor bill" trys to shoot the messenger.

Steve,

I applaud your efforts. This kind of effort is what's needed to implement change. You will now be known as "the squeaky wheel". I really appreciate all the work and time you put into this. Keep us posted.......


Fish on.......

RT,

Good work on your part. I appreciate that your are interested in my review. However, I must concede that this complex issue goes way beyond my expertise. I've followed fish management and treaty fishing issues for over 20 years, but this one is so complex that I would be surprised if it is well understood by anyone who actually does not actively work in this fish management and allocation arena.

My friends on the Cowlitz indicate that the state has made trade offs, like the ones Guy Norman referred to, with the tribes getting either some lower Columbia spring chinook (Cowlitz) or credits, in lieu of other fish later in the season, like coho or steelhead. I wish I did know how that worked, since the treaty share on fall chinook and steelhead is greater than the non-treaty share.

I'd like to insert a comment about how people only see what they want and ignore the rest. It relates to "our fishing rights" and the discrepance between the treaty and non-treaty shares. I've mentioned before that the federal courts have decided that treaty tribes have fishing rights. You and I have a fishing privilege. Do you think those are different when it comes to legal interpretations? I do.

The feds have that trust responsibility for the tribes. They actually have an obligation to us too. However, it's not hard to see how the federal lawyers would see that the trust responsibility to a fishing right is a higher priority than the trust responsibility to those with fishing privileges. I think that's a key to understanding why the feds gave deference to the treaty fishery over the non-treaty is deciding who gets to harvest the "incidental take" of ESA fish, even tho treaty nets will be 100% lethal, and the non-treaty recreational fishery could result in fairly high survival of released wild fish.

RT, sometimes I think our friends and neighbors here on this BB don't assimilate some of the basic facts that get posted here. Like this thread contains the oft-repeated comment regarding "the rights the government gave the Indians 100 years ago," and so forth. It's been stated so often, it's hard for me to believe there is a single hard core angler who doesn't understand the score and some basic facts about treaty fishing.

The U.S. government didn't give the tribes any rights. The tribes reserved all rights they previously had unless specifically given up in the treaty. I might mention that the U.S. did the same. And we wonder why tribes can sell and consume alcohol on reservations when that was forbidden in the treaty. Simple. A law changed that in the 1950s. The question was asked if some of the treaty fishing rights can be traded for casinos and such. The answer of course, is certainly. But what tribe would make such a trade when they can legally have both? The tribes own the fishing rights. That is the federal case law I have long ago come to understand. Trades can be made, but it would have to be along the lines of willing seller, willing buyer. Laws do change, but so far, the congressional Indian fighters have failed badly on this front. Like it or not, Americans and their congressional representatives generally support Indian rights, including treaty fishing rights.

Sorry for the slight thread drift away from the Columbia situation. But the treaty fishing implications are central to that issue, so the comments seemed relavent and worth repeating.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Thanks for the alert Native son. Being that I'm on the side of fairness I am well prepared for ANY kind of shots that might be fired from the side of unfairness. - Thanks for the supportive comments Dan. Has the Nisq. gotten any better? It had only one direction to go from our N. Board meeting! - Thanks much for taking the time to reply Salmo. It seems the more info that comes to light the more questions it raises. Didn't the Boldt and Belloni decisions, further defined by Fed. court decisions in 1974, interpret the 50% share for non-Indians of the fish deemed harvestable as a right? I don't recall in my reviews the interpretations as being described as privilages. Our rights have certainly been treated as privilages that keep getting taken away and often given to the Indians; depite our ability to release ESA native fish as you mentioned! So maybe you're correct about that. If so, would that be fair? NO! - I will repeat the questions here that I asked in the other thread for those that didn't see it. Since you describe these questions I've raised as being beyond your expertise Salmo, can you refer us to whom has the expertise to answer them? The NW sportfishers deserve the real answers. Would we have to go any higher than Mr. Stelle? All the way to Wash. D.C.? Or do you think the states lawsuit against the Fed.s/Tribes will bring out the truth? Or fairness? - RT