ODFW Response To Salmon Allocation Q.

In the post thread "Unfair Salmon Allocation", 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. I appreciate 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 pricipals 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

Re-print of my letter to Guy Norman of ODFW.
8/2/00

Dear Mr. Norman:

I want to thank you very much for taking the time to answer my letter pertaining to the negotiated Columbia River salmon and steelhead allocation issues. As mentioned, I will be posting it on the internet, first via our www.ifish.net Bulletin Board.
While your letter answered some of our questions, it left unanswered perhaps the most important question among most sport fishers. Why, under the infamous Judge Boldt decision giving Treaty Indians and non-Indians a 50% share each of salmon and steelhead deemed harvestable, do the Indians continue to come out with much more of the share of the Columbia fish? This is despite the fact they can both net and sportfish Columbia tributaries and most importantly cannot release unharmed the Fed. (protected) ESA fish that they inevitably net! While us sportfishers can release the percent of non fin-clipped wild fish (that are protected, and keep only the abundant clipped hatchery fish available).
As you are aware, sportfishers were not given any chance at the abundant Col. R. springers this year as the Treaty Tribes were. Now on the heels of that we are still not being given a fair allocation of the fall fish (that we mostly paid for)! Within your letter you stated your objective is "..... fair harvest opportunity for non-Indian and Treaty Indian fisheries." When and how will this be achieved?
Before I give your letter responses to our questions to other net and print media, beyond our net site, I will await your response to the 50/50 questions in this letter. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely, Steve Hanson (Ifish.net)

* Do you think they will anwser this appropriate question? Is there a coverup of Indian Treaty fishing abuses, enabled and abbetted by THE mysterious actions of the Fed. NMFS. Will Gov. Kitzhaber or Sen. Wyden be able to help us? Will there have to be a citizen class action suit against the "Unfair Pair"? - We await the answers. - Steve

[First Bite]

Steve
It sounds like he would like to see a change but is very limited in his power to do so. By using phrases like "continue to advocate", and "negotiating longer term", it sounds like he is up against some powerful adversaries in this complex issue.
Mark

[Pete]

Steve,
Be careful how you word the issue. I think many of us sport fishers are upset that the sport quota is so much smaller than the Indian quota. But I think Boldt addresses Indian v. non-Indian allocation. The non-Indian allocation includes both sport and commercial fish. I haven't done the math since I don't know what the commercial quota is, nor do I understand how ocean harvest is included or not included in the formula. None-the-less, thanks for your initiative in seeking an answer to this smoldering question.

[Jim]

RT...Well written, non abrasive letter!! Guy will respond to those everytime. My guess from experience he will be a little slower to respond to the 50/50 letter as governmental rhetoric won't work, but I could be wrong. Correct me if I am wrong but I believe that Westport and Ilwaco King counts go towards the sportfish Columbia numbers, Ilwaco makes sense and Westport fleet is forced to fish away from Grays Harbor. Anyway, I don't speak with a whole lot of practical experience on the Columbia but I am learning fast and listening hard. Keep up the good work, I for one appreciate it.

Jim

[Okiedrifter]

great job RT, i think u did a masterfull job w/ ur letter.. there is only so many ways to ask a straight foward question, of corse it will take more hell than a little bit to get a straight foward answer. i would like to thank u, for taking the time to ask the hard questions...people are hard to please so u got to do what u feel is right, ask the questions u want answers to, and sleep knowing u tried to make the difference. thanks the mullen family..

------------------
okiedrifter

[Fishin' Freak]

RT, Very well written, your persistance is admired. After the Cascade Locks non-rally, I could see how it would have been easy for a person to say why bother. It is people like yourself that will in the end make a difference. If there is anything that I can do to help get straight answers to this worth while cause let me know. Thanks again.



------------------
Tight lines and long drives

Thank you very much for the supportive posts! It means a lot to me that that this isn't falling on deaf ears. As for this situation, we sportfishers who as citizens paying taxes and license fees, more than deserve an answer to these questions; I believe they fall under the right to public information act. If the things going on behind closed doors are technically legal and fair, they should not have a problem answering the questions. Yet it seems harder than pulling teeth to get anywhere. Could indicate a lot of complex things happening which may be very unfair and that they would prefer we didn't know! - Steve

[Slider]

This was posted on Bob's and for those of you who don't peruse the board it should shed light on what factors into the decisions.


"This has more to do with legal interpretation of the court decisions rather than mathematics. The interpretation regarding the Tribal/State allocation (per the Boldt decision) is as follows:

First and foremost, the needs of the fish must be met. That is, THE FISH COME FIRST. Let's not forget that.

Second, if there are any fish above that needed for spawning, harvest is allocated as follows:

Tribal subsistence and cerimonial fisheries (not commerical) have first rights. However, this fishery is usually quite small.

Second, the Tribes get 50% of the available harvest for commerical purposes. The current interpretation by the Feds is that the Tribes get their allocation first. The State would get the other 50% percent but only if they are not constrained by other factors (e.g., the Endangered Species Act - ESA).

In the case of the Columbia River, the harvest is constrained by ESA listed stocks on the Snake River. Therefore, the level of fishing is dictated by the level of "incidental take" of listed Snake River fish. The National Marine Fisheries Service has set the "incidental take" at 31%. That is, fishing can proceed only until 31% of the Snake River Chinooks are caught. Therefore, the Tribes, States and Feds negotiated the level of incidental take. They are NOT negotiating the overall harvest levels.

Now comes the tricky part. Since the Feds believe (and the courts appear to agree) the Tribes get their 50% share before ESA kicks in, the Tribes are entitled to 100 percent of the incidental take (all 31%) in order for them to achieve their 50% overall allocation. Since the Tribes are entitled to the entire incidental take, the States 50% allocation CANNOT BE HARVESTED. The States end up with zero.

An example might help.

If the overall harvest level for the Columbia River (after spawning escapement and Tribal cerimonial fishery) is say 50,000 Chinook, the Tribes are entitled to 25,000 and the State is entitled to 25,000. But if all 50,000 fish are havested, the harvest of listed Snake River fall Chinooks would exceed the 31% incidental take level (i.e. the Snake River fish might go extinct). Therefore, the overall harvest level must be reduced to prevent the Snake River fish from vanishing. Unfortunately, the levels are not reduced equally. So, let's say that to prevent harvest from taking too many Snake River fish, the total harvest level (as dictated by the incidental take limit) can only be 25,000 Chinook. According to Feds, the Tribes get their cut before the State. Therefore, the Tribes get all 25,000 since they are entitled to 50% of the allowable harvest before ESA kicks in. The other 25,000 (the States 50% share) cannot be harvested because it would exceed the incidental take limit imposed by the ESA. So, the States 50% share of the overall allocation is still there, but it can't be harvested by anglers, commericals, tribal folks, or anyone else.


I have in previous posts eluded to this but never wanted to (no patience) post such a long winded subject.

Slider

Thanks for reprinting "Cohoangler"'s reply post to this subject where I also put it on the P.P. BB. "Coho" is a fisheries biologist, so his info has credibilty even though it sounds preposterous! No wonder officials are reluctant to answer the real questions. It will be interesting to see what, if anything, Guy Norman has to say about this. It's absurd that the Fed.s see the Treaty Tribes as immune to their own Federal Endangered Species Act!!! According to the Boldt binding decision, which many people see as unfair to the majority already, "THE FISH COME FIRST". Why are the Fed.s, via the NMFS, putting Tribal netting first instead??? The ESA now decides the fish "deemed harvestable", which sportfishers are entitled to 50%! ESA or no ESA. "Coho" eluded to the likelyhood the States will seek further court litigation against the "Unfair Pair". I think a major citizen class action suit would be justifiable too for the fish we pay for and lawfully deserve to fish for. - AGAIN, anybody in the know, why is the Federal Government going outside the law so wrongfully in favor of the Treaty Tribes in this matter. - Note: I have no problem with most of the principles involved with Treaties, and certainly don't have any ill feelings toward individual Native Americans. Only a problem with illegal unfairness! - RT

Here is a copy of Vanc, WA based fisheries biologist's further explaination ("Cohoangler"):

You folks have hit the nail on the head. What is the legal justification for the Federal position that Tribal rights come before ESA? That's the legal question that the States would litigate over if it came to a court challenge. The State is likely to argue that the Consititutional guarantee of equal protection under the law applies. The Tribes will argue that the States "share" of the fish are either killed at the dams or are taken in the high seas fishery so the States have already gotten their fish. The Tribes are simply at the end of the line. The real problem of course is that both sides are correct (to a degree).
(By the way, this issue is not confined to just the Columbia River basin and salmon. The Feds are very concerned over how the ESA should be implemented when it affects Tribal trust resources throughout the country. It has major implications.)

However, both the States and the Tribes have strong reasons for not going to court over this issue. The Tribes don't want to litigate because they have everything to lose and nothing to gain. Plus, the States control most of the production since the Tribes don't have hatcheries. So if the States end up with zero, the States would have no reason to produce the fish in the first place and might shut down their hatcheries. The Tribes don't like that idea at all. The States don't want to litigate since if they do, the Tribes will likely not negotiate ANY level of fishing in the Columbia until the issue is settled. That could take years. In the meantime, fall Chinook fishing by non-Tribal anglers could shut down between Astoria and the mouth of the Snake River. Perhaps for many years. In addition, if the Federal position is upheld, the States would lose control of the fishery on the Columbia River as long as ESA is in effect. That prospect has the States very concerned.

However, you have also hit upon the simple answer to the problem - mass marking of Chinook. As most of us know, virtually 100% of the hatchery coho and steelhead are marked with an adipose clip. However, almost none of the Chinook are marked. Therefore, hatchery Chinook and wild Chinook are currently indistinguishable. With the available technology, the States and Feds can't physically mark all the Chinook that are produced in the Columbia River hatcheries, there are simply too many smolts.

If automated clipping can be improved and hatchery Chinook can be seperated from wild Chinook, this entire issue goes away. The States can harvest their 50% allocation per the Boldt decision while also releasing wild fish thru C&R. The technology isn't there yet but it's coming. Look for mass marking of spring Chinook to start up soon, perhaps next year. Fall Chinook may be next but since there are millions upon millions of fall Chinooks smolts, technology may have to improve before that becomes a reality.

------------------

Copy of my reply:

Thanks again for your valuable insight Coho. Things are becoming clearer. But not fairer. I talked to people from NISA, who are involved in supporting the State's position, that told me, prior to trying to organize a protest rally at Cascade Locks in early May, that 40% of this year's Col. springers were adipose clipped; and next year a majority will be clipped, lending to optimism we will be given a mainstem Col. springer season on next year's predicted even bigger run, AS IT SHOULD BE! Another thing I don't understand is why the States can't come up with the revenue to clip the fall smolts. If it comes down to keeping these hatcheries open I'm confidant that both sporties and Indians would help financially to get this done. In the meantime, the issue of a fair 50/50 split of ESA guideline harvestable fish still needs immediate rectification. - Would the spotfishers pay maybe a $5 fee for a tag to fish clipped Col. fall chinooks? Would the Tribes give a small tax on commercial sales of netted Col. fall fish? I would sure think so in light of the alternatives! - Steve

[Okiedrifter]

why doesnt the odfw ask for volunters, to help in the fin clipping process. i mean how many of us wouldnt gladly donate at least one day to a cause, that would benefit ourselves...lets see hunderds of fisherman, clipping hunderds of chinook equals%%%%%% of fin clipped chinookous...how many fisherman wouldnt help with donated time for any endever, if only we were asked.

------------------
okiedrifter

Mullens', I would hope they would get more than just a few. If fishermen turnout for other worthy causes are any indication I wouldn't get too optimistic. Great idea though! I hope the right people heard it. - RT

I very much appreciate just recieving a call from an ODFW rep, who prefered anonymity for the time being (due to sensative ongoing negotiations), to give me more information on this subject. He has been following this thread and there are some corrections and explainations due, although he commended "Coho" and others for a very good knowledge base. - The court decisions handed down by Judge Boldt were jurisdictional to the state of Washington inclusive. It was Judge Belloni that handed down a similar court decision concerning the Columbia River fisheries back in 1968. It essentially also gave a 50/50 split of harvestable fish to Indian and non-Indian fishers. As "Coho" eluded to, non-Indian fisheries include ocean harvests and commercial netters in addition to Col. sportfishers. This decision has undergone several court challenges since. Along with the advent of the Fed. ESA, the whole issue has become very complex! The Col. Tribal position is that the causes of the decline of Col. R. fish stocks has been primarily from other factors than their fishing; particularly the dams. They also point out that sportfishers are getting more of the share of steelhead and coho, thus they believe they deserve more of the spring and fall chinook, including the entire allowance of ESA fish (for which they essentially claim non-responsibility for decline). Despite this not being entirely true, the Fed.s have mostly sided with their position. The State's do not agree with their position and have been instructed by a judge to try to negotiate an out of court settlement between the States and the Col. Tribal Comm./NMFS. - As for the issue of fin clipping Col. fall chinooks, that's complicated by the fact that about half the run is unclipped native Hanford Reach fish which have healthy enough stocks to be harvested, unlike Snake R. fish. Since these nates are harvestable with their aidpose fin intact it doesn't warrant the expense to fin clip other hatchery Col. fall runs. It is a different story with the Col. springers that are being clipped now. As previously stated, they will return next spring with over half of a huge run being clipped. So their is much optimism of a mainstem Col. quota fishery for sportfishers next spring! - He said there will be more information forthcoming for us; possibly as soon as next week. - RT

[This message has been edited by RT (edited 08-04-2000).]