HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE September 21, 1995 9:00 a.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Representative William K. "Bill" Williams, Co-Chairman Representative Scott Ogan, Vice Chairman Representative Alan Austerman Representative Eileen MacLean Representative Irene Nicholia Representative John Davies, via teleconference MEMBERS ABSENT Representative Joe Green, Co-Chairman Representative Ramona Barnes Representative Pete Kott COMMITTEE CALENDAR Fish Allocation Between Canada and Alaska WITNESS REGISTER JOE AMBROSE, Legislative Assistant to Senator Robin Taylor Alaska State Legislature Capitol Building, Room 30 Juneau, AK 99801 Telephone: (907) 465-3873 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of Senator Robin Taylor. CHUCK MEACHAM, House/Senate Majority Staff Alaska State Legislature Capitol Building, Room 208 Juneau, AK 99801 Telephone: (907) 465-3720 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided background information on the Pacific Salmon Treaty, Endangered Species Act and litigation against Alaska by Pacific Northwest tribes. BRUCE M. BOTELHO, Attorney General Department of Law P. O. Box 110300 Juneau, AK 99801-0300 Telephone: (907) 465-3600 POSITION STATEMENT: Presented status of litigation and appeals. SCOTT MARSHALL, Southeast Regional Supervisor Division of Commercial Fisheries Management & Development Department of Fish & Game P. O. Box 240020 Douglas, AK 99824 Telephone: (907) 465-4250 POSITION STATUS: Gave overview of Chinook salmon fishery. GARY FREITAG Southern Southeast Regional Aquaculture Association 2721 Tongass Avenue Ketchikan, AK 99901 Telephone: (907) 225-9875 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as a member of the Chinook Salmon Technical Committee, Pacific Salmon Commission KAY ANDREWS, Gillnetter 506 Tower Road Ketchikan, AK 99901 Telephone: (907) 225-2463 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified about her fishing experiences at the Alaska/Canada border. MEREDITH MARSHALL P. O. Box 7418 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Telephone: (907) 225-2134 POSITION STATEMENT: Urged state to assert sovereignty over its natural resources. GEOFF BULLOCK United Southeast Alaska Gillnetters P. O. Box 6616 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Telephone: (907) 225-9295 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified urging state support and continued funding. LONNIE HAUGHTON, Ketchikan Trollers Association Ketchikan Sports and Wildlife Club P. O. Box 3005 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Telephone: (907) 225-1289 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified encouraging the state to continue funding. ANGELO L. MARTIN 536 Schoewdar Road Ketchikan, AK 99901 Telephone: (907) 225-3259 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified asking the committee and the state to stand up and yell a little bit louder. BARRY McCLELLAND, Commercial Fisherman P. O. BOX 9291 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Telephone: (907) 225-5671 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified that Southeast Alaska is threatened with closure of its access to the Chinook salmon resource. BERNARD GUTHRIE, Commercial Fisherman P.O. BOX 95 Metlakatla, AK 99826 Telephone: (907)886-7128 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified asking if the federal treaty violates the state's right to manage its own fishery. ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 95-69, SIDE A Number 000 CO-CHAIRMAN BILL WILLIAMS called the House Resources Committee meeting, in Ketchikan, to order at 9:15 a.m. Members present at the call to order were Representatives Williams, Ogan, Austerman, and MacLean. Representative Davies was on teleconference from Fairbanks. Members absent were Representatives Nicholia, Barnes, Green and Kott. CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS referred to media coverage over the past few years about how Alaska fishermen are being so greedy and supposedly not caring about the fish stock throughout the West Coast. He said, "We also know that the way Alaska is portrayed in the outside press is not always correct. As the salmon wars have heated up this summer, I have been in contact with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game so I could keep track of what was going on. I called this meeting today so that the Resources Committee and the general public could hear directly from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game experts about what the real situation is." Number 046 JOE AMBROSE, Legislative Assistant to Senator Robin Taylor, welcomed the committee members to Ketchikan. MR. AMBROSE provided background information about Senator Taylor's early involvement in the Alaska fishing industry and his efforts in the Alaska State Legislature on behalf of the industry: "Senator Taylor applauds your efforts Mr. Chairman and that of this committee to stay abreast of the issues surrounding the treaty and the current involvement of the courts. Senator Taylor is convinced that what is going on now, that is - court interference in issues that should properly be addressed by the process of negotiation is really a subterfuge. It is long-felt that the interest of Canada and the Pacific Northwest believe they can more easily prevail if the current treaty process is abandoned and the issues are settled in direct talks between the governments in Ottawa and Washington, D.C. The people of the Pacific Northwest, Western Canada and Alaska have made their choices on the resource issues long ago. The people of the Pacific Northwest chose cheap power over their fish stocks. The people of Western Canada chose to exploit their resource. The people of Alaska chose to manage their resource for the future of future generations. Now we are being asked to make up for the poor choices already made by our neighbors. "Senator Taylor also asked me to convey a word of warning to this committee. There are those at work trying to implement the old principle of divide and conquer. Consensus was achieved under the original treaty. Those who would advocate a new consensus are jeopardizing that hard won agreement. We are also hearing from those who advocate letting the troll fishery go extinct. Allocation decisions, especially those forced upon us relative to king salmon are leading to a rift between commercial fishermen and the guided sport industry and between resident and nonresident fisheries. Given time, Alaskans can sort through those problems, but for now, we must remain united and we must remain assured that Alaska is represented by the `A Team' both in court and at the negotiating table and that they have unanimous support of all Alaskans." Number 087 CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS noted that Representative Irene Nicholia had arrived. Number 089 CHUCK MEACHAM, Legislative Leadership Staff, stated that he appeared before the committee on behalf of the Alaska State Senate and House Leadership. He said he had been asked to provide general background information on current salmon problems associated with Canada and Pacific Northwest states and Indian tribes as they affect Alaska. By way of personal background, he said: "I have a bachelor and masters degree in fisheries, I have spent 21 years with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. I was Alaska's commissioner on the Pacific Salmon Commission and the Pacific States Marine Fish Commission. I also commercial fished for four years and worked for seafood processors as well. Most recently, I was retained by the Alaska legislative leadership to brief and advise them on state and federal fisheries matters. I will provide some general background information on three separate salmon issues of critical importance to Alaska fisheries. First, the Pacific Salmon Treaty which was signed in 1985; second, the federal Endangered Species Act that has impacted Alaska's fisheries for the past few years; and very briefly, about more recent litigation against the state of Alaska by Pacific Northwest tribes that resulted in closure of our commercial Chinook salmon fishery." Number 110 MR. MEACHAM continued his testimony stating other representatives of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game and, by teleconference, the Department of Law will be able to provide further detail on all of these matters. He said he would also provide current legislative leadership perspectives and actions taken to address some of these problems. Number 114 MR. MEACHAM said, "First, what is a Pacific Salmon Treaty and why is it such a problem for Alaska? It is a federal treaty, it is not a state treaty. It is a federal treaty signed by the United States and Canada in 1985. The treaty deals with the conservation and fair-sharing of certain salmon stocks off Oregon, Washington, British Columbia and Southeast Alaska. Salmon stocks in all of these jurisdictions intermingle and generally migrate north to Canada and Alaska where they feed and grow. Cooperative management was viewed as necessary, in the earlier years, for conservation of these stocks and I think it was. MR. MEACHAM continued, "The Pacific Salmon Treaty is actually implemented through a bilateral pacific salmon commission. Actions of the commission are directed by four Canadian commissioners and by four United States commissioners. The four U.S. commissioners represent Alaska, Pacific Northwest Indian tribes, the combined states of Oregon and Washington, and the federal government. In this process, the federal commissioner has no vote and consensus agreement is required of the other three commissioners in order to implement any action within the U.S. section. Unfortunately, dramatic production differences between many Alaska salmon stocks and many Canadian and Pacific Northwest salmon stocks have developed. These differences have resulted in two diametrically opposed perspectives on salmon conservation and fair-sharing that make the consensus positions within the commission extremely difficult to achieve. MR. MEACHAM proceeded, "Washington, Oregon and the Pacific Northwest tribal fishermen probably do understand that their salmon stocks are severely depressed due to hydroelectric development, primarily, general habitat degradation; and very unfavorable environmental conditions such as the `El Nino' warm temperatures; and quite honestly, frequent inability or unwillingness to manage their own jurisdictions to implement the strict conservation measures that are necessary. Nevertheless, these people do look to Alaska to pay the price for these environmental and self-made problems. Stock productions differences have also resulted in Canada believing it is disadvantaged because Canadian catches of Washington and Oregon north migrating salmon have been reduced. Canada is also unhappy because increased numbers, but not proportions of some north migrating Canadian salmon stocks are caught incidentally as bycatch by Alaska fishermen as fishermen are targeting record levels of our own production. Number 155 MR. MEACHAM, "Therefore Canada, Washington and Oregon, Pacific Northwest tribes and certain elements of the federal government, because of the Endangered Species Act, are aligned against Alaska within the Pacific Salmon Commission. So it is of critical importance to understand this process." MR. MEACHAM discussed the Endangered Species Act and how it affects Alaska's salmon fisheries saying this is a federal act initially passed in 1973. "It was last amended in 1988, and it is currently before Congress for reauthorization again. The concept behind the Endangered Species Act really was to protect species from extinction. There are a number of serious problems with this act as it is currently written including the definition of species to include distinct population segment. Here in Alaska, most of us pretty well understand the behavior of salmon. He defined what a distinct population segment of a species is saying, "for salmon the fish in each stream can represent a distinct population segment. There are literally tens of thousands of salmon streams, each of which is inhabited by one to five salmon species. Number 190 MR. MEACHAM continued, "Among the distinct population segments currently listed by the federal government as threatened is a stock of Chinook salmon from a tributary of the Columbia River in Idaho. It is called the Snake River. I am sure you have all heard of the Snake River fall Chinook. Unfortunately, a few of these fish are taken in Alaska by Alaskan fishermen; and, it is truly just a few. Alaska fisheries are believed to cause about a quarter of 1 percent of human induced mortality to Snake River fall Chinook. Hydro- system operations, on the other hand, are associated with about 95 percent of the mortality. That is where the problem lies. Number 201 MR. MEACHAM said, "Federal law requires that in order to take a threatened species, a special permit needs to be obtained from the federal government. Without such a permit, fishermen in Alaska cannot take any of these threatened fish. So in order to obtain an incidental take permit, the state of Alaska had to agree to reduce fishing time in 1993. In 1994, negotiations with the federal government resulted in an approximate 23,000 fish reduction from what was agreed to through the Pacific Salmon Commission process. In 1995, negotiations related to the Endangered Species Act brought about further reductions with a limit of 230,000 as compared with 263,000 salmon that would be approved under the commission process. Unfortunately, legal action brought against Alaska by Pacific Northwest Indian tribes further reduced our take of fish. What were the benefits to the spawning grounds of these Endangered Species Act restrictions placed on Alaska fisheries? They were absolutely minuscule and impossible to measure. Number 230 MR. MEACHAM said the last items he wanted to touch upon were legal actions taken against Alaska in 1995 that resulted in the closure of the Southeast Alaska commercial Chinook fishery. "Indian tribes from the Pacific Northwest initiated legal action against us in August. The case was heard in the United States federal district court in Seattle, Judge Barbara J. Rothstein presiding. The judge ruled against Alaska and prohibited the state from authorizing marine fisheries directed at Chinook or the incidental retention of Chinook taken in other fisheries. The prohibition did allow, however, for a 2,000 sport harvest to be taken. Alaska did appeal this injunction but lost, unfortunately, before the same judge and that occurred earlier this month. This judgment is effective through the Pacific Salmon Commission accounting year which ends September 30. Appeals are continuing, but unfortunately the fish lost cannot be regained. Pacific Northwest tribes are also pursuing litigation against Alaska in an attempt to apply some of the provisions of the Judge Boldt decision to fish caught in Alaskan waters. This case is scheduled to be heard in April of next year before the same court and the same judge. MR. MEACHAM said, What are the actions taken to date and the approaches being considered by the state and House leadership? Fisheries issues have always been important to the Alaska legislature. This year, however, a new urgency has developed especially in the area of state and federal management authority. Accordingly, the legislature has a significantly increased role in this area. Number 259 MR. MEACHAM continued, "The leadership is supporting strong legal action taken in all these fronts. We have no alternative. We must take strong, strong legal action. Legal action, while critically necessary, does need to be coupled with an effective communication package and sensitive negotiations undertaken directly with the parties involved. In this instance, Alaska fishermen simply cannot afford to wait on the federal courts. Furthermore, court mandated solutions, at least by my experience, are seldom best for the fish or the fishermen. The Leadership has also been very proactive in working to amend the federal Endangered Species Act. Both the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House provided written and oral testimony at federal hearings dealing with reauthorization of this act, and that includes a hearing yesterday before the U.S. committee on resources. That testimony is available. Many specific recommendations have been provided including the need to modify the definition of species to exclude `distinct population segments.' The vast number of distinct population segments that exist just for salmon provide too many opportunities for misapplication of the act by special interest groups including our own federal government. Really, application of the act to distinct population segments of salmon defies Mother Nature and is simply contrary to common sense. Population segments of a salmon species spread from the center of their range until living conditions are marginally habitable. At the periphery of any species range, population segments are constantly in a threatened and an endangered status. If this were not the case, then every species of salmon would be found everyplace on earth. Number 290 MR. MEACHAM continued, "With regard to the Pacific Salmon Commission, serious consideration needs to given to entering in to negotiations with a greater sensitivity to the real Pacific Northwest and Canadian salmon problems. I do not say that lightly. It is not that Alaska is the cause of these problems, nor can Alaska be much of the solution. But, I do think that rhetoric and confrontation, while making some of us feel good, myself included, needs to be reduced if the fish and our fishery are going to survive in the long term. While Alaska can do nothing to eliminate problematic and climatic events such as "El Nino", we can be of significant assistance in providing technological help and proven effective fisheries management expertise. Further consideration should be given to a north - south split within the commission process. This would enable Alaska to work directly and effectively with British Columbia without the extraneous complications associated with Washington, Oregon, and Pacific Northwest tribes being involved. Many problems could be solved for transboundary Stikine and Taku Rivers as well as the Alaska/B.C. northern boundary fisheries. Not all salmon problems would be directly solved especially for Chinook, that is clearly the case. But, a more productive working relationship would develop which could benefit Chinook as well. Northern British Columbia and Alaska really do have much in common, much that can be taken advantage of mutually. Number 320 MR. MEACHAM concluded his testimony, "Lastly, consideration must also be given to public outreach programs directed towards Pacific Northwest states and the tribes and the Canadians. The Alaska legislature is active in a number of forums with Pacific Northwest states; one of these being the Pacific States Marine Fish Commission. The commission met last week in Oregon; earlier this summer they met in Homer and at that time, Alaska did have their position put forward. These kind of opportunities exist. We need to take advantage of them. Even more effective would be `fishermen to fishermen' forums. I feel these could be arranged using existing organizations such as the Alaska Trollers Association, United Southeast Alaska Gillnet Association and the Southeast Alaska Seiners Association. There are probably others as well. Our salmon resource is of vital importance to Alaskans and the legislature. We all know that. I hope this background information was helpful to you. I would also ask the public to please share your views on these matters with this committee and the Senate and House Leadership." Number 346 CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked members if they had questions of Mr. Meacham. Number 349 REPRESENTATIVE ALAN AUSTERMAN addressed Mr. Meacham's testimony regarding the 1994 negotiated settlement of reducing 23,000 fish and asked, "Is there anyway of knowing how many of the 23,000 are the threatened stock that they are concerned about?" Number 357 MR. MEACHAM responded that estimates were made by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. "Again, these are estimates but it is just a few fish. Some calculations suggest that it is less than one fish. Other ways of calculating it come up with a handful or so. They are just minute, minute numbers. The expense to Alaska is obviously great, 23,000 fish. I suspect that the department can provide a more recent estimate, perhaps. But, it is very, very few fish." Number 367 REPRESENTATIVE IRENE NICHOLIA asked Mr. Meacham, "Have they done any GSI studies?" MR. MEACHAM said that there have been all kinds of studies that have taken place with regard to the Snake River fall Chinook. "The estimates of our harvest of Snake River fall Chinook are based on coded wire tag hatchery fish from an adjacent hatchery. So quite honestly, it is being used as a surrogate in just making an estimate, which is better than a guess, but not a lot. It is based on coded wire tagging. I do not think that there have been any other genetic study used to try and identify these threatened or endangered fish in Alaska waters." Number 378 REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA asked Mr. Meacham, "Who represents Alaska on that commission?" MR. MEACHAM said that on the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game has one position held by David Benton; the legislature has a position presently held by Senator Loren Leman; and one public commissioner position held by Dale Kelly who is head of the Alaska Trollers Association. Number 390 MR. AMBROSE asked Mr. Meacham to elaborate on the pending litigation by the Pacific Northwest tribes as far the Boldt decision. He asked what provisions are we talking about and what would the impact be if they were successful in their suit. MR. MEACHAM responded that it is very difficult to know. "One of the primary inducements to Alaska signing the treaty in 1985 was that this suit be set aside. So, at that time, when it was seriously evaluated by the attorneys and the Alaska fishermen they felt it was of sufficient concern to put aside. That was sufficient incentive to sign the treaty. The Boldt decision prescribes that 50 percent of the salmon taken down South go to tribal people. There is a 50/50 mandated split. Initially this was begun for salmon, since that time it has been expanded to other species including shellfish. Whether or not they can argue effectively that the salmon caught in Alaska, they are entitled to 50 percent of those that are going back down there, is arguable. That is why it is important." Number 419 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN addressed Mr. Meacham saying that he had recently read a newspaper article in reference to the federal government dividing the West Coast into four or five distinct areas of drawing lines as to where they are looking at the salmon coming from. He asked if that is having any impact on this treaty or the threatened and endangered decisions that they are making. MR. MEACHAM answered that what he thought Representative Austerman was recalling was the aggregations of coho salmon stocks along the Pacific Northwest into distinct population segments. He said there is not any direct linkage to the Pacific Salmon Treaty. "There is not any direct linkage in terms of the most recent court suit that came our way. The linkage that exists would be with the Endangered Species Act and if it is reauthorized in a fashion that calls a `species being a species' rather than a `distinct population segment' then we would probably not be negatively affected. On the other hand, my understanding of some of these coho is that they do move into Alaskan waters and, perhaps, even to a greater extent than do Snake River fall Chinook which could be a problem for us." Number 450 REPRESENTATIVE EILEEN MACLEAN referred to the Endangered Species Act asking if Chinook salmon is considered endangered. MR. MEACHAM replied, "Chinook salmon as a species are clearly not endangered. However, the distinct population segment of Chinook from Snake River is threatened. Some people think it should be called endangered. It is truly troubled, there is no question about that. In my view, while there is an obligation to do what we can for the salmon, I think it ought to be promoted by the federal government. I think it ought to be implemented at the state and local level. I do not think the federal government has any business coming in and controlling major areas of the state, or multiple states, associated with the fish coming from one small tributary. That is what is happening with Alaska." Number 478 REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN asked Mr. Meacham if the state had ever formed a commission for the salmon treaty. MR. MEACHAM responded that we have a group of fishermen that are working together in a group known as the `northern panel' of the Pacific Salmon Commission. Number 509 BRUCE BOTELHO, ATTORNEY GENERAL testified. "Judge Rothstein, who is the current U. S. District Court judge supervising the lawsuit known as the Confederated Tribes v. Baldridge, Baldridge was Secretary of Commerce in 1980, set a hearing on August 11 on a request by the tribes joined by Oregon and Washington with Canada participating as an amicus or friend of the court to consider the question of whether Alaska had violated either the terms of the treaty or at least the terms of the stipulation when it proceeded with its abundant space methodology for computing a harvestable rate for Alaska. We participated in that hearing. MR. BOTELHO continued, "In retrospect, we went with great optimism that there should be really no controversy in the law at all. Alaska had voluntarily reduced its harvest ceiling based on its own methodology from that which had been the regime in place from the 1991-1993 season of 263,000 to a catch limit of 230,000. We were stunned when Judge Rothstein at that point issued a temporary restraining order and agreed to then schedule a hearing on preliminary injunction for August 30. In that time, the state was able to assemble a very strong litigation team that was made up of not only of state lawyers but a coalition of interests both in terms of gear groups and Native entities who made available lawyers to be part of team. MR. BOTELHO continued, "There was a three-day trial which resulted in the decision issued on the 8th of September by Judge Rothstein in which she purported to conclude that she was not ruling on the treaty process at all, simply that we had violated the stipulation which Chuck Meacham referred to tangentially entered in the Baldridge case that led to actual creation of the treaty in 1985. The stipulation that terminated that litigation presumably stopped bringing Alaska into the U.S. v. Washington -- that is the Boldt decision controversy in exchange for setting up a treaty regime. Her rationale was that Alaska had agreed to be bound by the treaty process and by its act unilaterally implementing its abundant space methodology without first getting prior approval by at least the U.S. section of the Pacific Salmon Commission and prior review of the Chinook technical committee we had breached our implied duty of good faith and fair dealing under the terms of the stipulation which she analogized to a contract. Having found that implied violation of this contract, she employed a balancing test, balancing of the hardships which she is required to do and despite the fact that she generally accepted our proposition that a reduction of some 55,000 Chinook in Alaska would perhaps return at most some 400 fish to the terminal fishery and cause economic hardship for Alaskans that this loss to Alaskans was outweighed by the duty to rebuild the stocks primarily on the Columbia since that was the primary area of potential injury. We asked her to stay her decision because the consequence of it was to shut off the remainder of the 1995 Chinook harvest in Alaska. She refused to do so. MR. BOTELHO continued, "We petitioned the ninth circuit again on jurisdictional grounds as well as the actual balancing of the hardship of the misapplication of that task and asked them to issue an emergency stay which they rejected. We now have that matter pending on expedited appeal in front of the ninth circuit. The court, uncharacteristically but, I think partly as a consequence of our taking the position that the ninth circuit should be split into a twelve circuit and one of our reasons for making that pitch was the lengthy delays in getting decisions has put this issue on an emergency briefing schedule with the state's brief due on October 6 and theirs to be followed two weeks later and a final briefing due at the end of October with oral arguments to follow immediately. That is the status of that particular episode. MR. BOTELHO continued, "The consequence of this particular case in parallel developments undertaken to form a strike force on this. What is not quite clear is that the tribes in particular have orchestrated a strategy that makes use of their biologists; in the technical process they go with marching orders about how they are going to proceed. The commissioners on the U.S. section who participate are also being coordinated by lawyers and all of this playing in the courtroom where we believe that this should not be happening and our position has been that the courts are not the place to settle this issue. But, as a consequence of their strategy, it is quite clear that we need to have a similar coordinated effort. That is what we do in the treaty process needs to fit also with our litigation strategy. As a consequence of that, there are basically four things that we are doing at the state level. MR. BOTELHO said, "In terms of our own litigation force, I have retained Mike Stanley, a private practitioner who has represented gear groups from around the state but is in Southeast and the lead attorney for the Southeast seiners. As special assistant to the attorney general to lead up our efforts working with the Department of Fish and Game and the treaty process and to lead our litigation efforts in both U.S. v. Washington and in Confederated Tribes v. Baldridge. I have two assistant attorneys general who are assigned full time on this to work with him. In addition, we have had pledges of support and are developing a coordinated effort with a coalition led by the Alaska Trollers Association in the form of Bruce Wyrock, and in Seattle, John Casperson. Tlingit Haida Central Council and Grand Camp of ANB have joined to make David Crosby available to this effort and finally Klukwan, Inc. and Shee Atika and Goldbelt have made available Bob Blasco to serve again as part of this team on an ongoing effort. Number 739 MR. BOTELHO continues, "As I have said, we are really working on four fronts. I have told you that we are working specifically to appeal Judge Rothstein's decision in the ninth circuit. We also are anticipating a possible repeat of what happened in 1995. That is the tribes in Oregon and Washington trying to make use of Judge Rothstein's court to leverage a lower ceiling for 1996. We also have the lawsuit U.S. v. Washington. That case has been going on for a quarter of a century. Judge Boldt's decision that Chuck Meacham referred to was the most notorious issue until 1974 and, alternately affirmed by the U.S. Court in 1979, would allocate 50 percent of the harvestable return to the tribes as a result of an interpretation of the so-called `Stevens Treaties' that were entered into in the 1850s between various tribes in Washington and the United States. What has happened is there have been a number of subproceedings that have kept this case alive and as Chuck outlined briefly we are now litigating the question...." (end of tape) TAPE 95-69, SIDE B Number 000 MR. BOTELHO said, "...since the treaty was entered into with the United States and is binding on all citizens of the U.S. that the tribes are entitled to 50 percent of the harvest everywhere, not simply at the terminal, and therefore have a right to extend their claims to those species that migrate into Alaska waters. It has not been limited only to salmon but the claim that they have asserted would also extend to bottomfish like halibut. Shellfish have already been determined to be included. So the major threat for Alaska. The matter is scheduled for trial. Alaska was basically brought into the proceedings about nine months ago, it is scheduled for a three-week trial in March of 1996 in Seattle. We are nominally, at least, in this litigation aligned with Washington and Oregon but our major efforts right now we have motions for a partial semi-judgment which the judge has refused to rule which would have precluded Alaska from being bound from the outcome of the case. So, we are proceeding on the assumption that we will have to fully litigate the case in trial itself. So, that is the third prong. The fourth prong is developing strategies in front of the various treaty agencies so that we have a case that is consistent, that we have developed a record there that shows Alaska's commitment both to sustained yield and rebuilding which has been our watchword that is proceeding on the basis of sound science. That Mr. Chairman, in a nutshell, is where we are today." Number 031 REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN asked MR. BOTELHO if the Administration has formed a commission for the state of Alaska instead of going with a federal commission on fisheries. MR. BOTELHO answered in the negative saying not on this issue. "It is clearly because it is a treaty matter and is one controlled by both federal treaty, which was ratified by Congress, and a specific statute that preempts Alaska from being able to act unilaterally." Number 060 REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIES testified via teleconference from Fairbanks and asked Mr. Botelho to give a sense of how much of the disagreement rests on procedural things and how much of it is based on technical disagreement over the actual harvest. MR. BOTELHO responded that the battle, however couched, is politically driven to reach a predetermined result which is to maximize allocations to the South at Alaska's expense. Number 078 REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA addressed Chuck Meacham clarifying that the Legislative Leadership was strongly supporting action against the federal government in application of the Endangered Species Act against Alaska and others; she asked about the projected timeline of the lawsuit. MR. MEACHAM explained that it was difficult to project a timeline for court cases. He said a reauthorization of the Endangered Species Act might take place this session. Number 090 REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA followed up by asking if this case had been filed in the court system. MR. MEACHAM responded that there have been multiple cases filed in the court system. Number 099 REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN asked for further information and clarification of the Endangered Species Act. She asked if the act was primarily for commercial or sports fisheries. MR. MEACHAM replied that in Alaska the emphasis was related to commercial fisheries but that all fisheries are involved in the Endangered Species Act. Number 126 REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN asked whether others besides British Columbia vehemently opposed fisheries in Alaska. MR. MEACHAM said the fisheries in Canada were managed exclusively by the Department of Fish and Oceans, a Canadian federal government organization. It is British Columbia that borders Alaska and the Pacific Northwest tribes, but they do not have management authority. He emphasized there are innumerable opportunities where both Alaska and British Columbia fishermen and fish could benefit by working together. Number 166 REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA referred to the north/south split and asked Mr. Meacham for his views. MR. MEACHAM responded, "There are a number of panels within the existing commission process; he foresees the transboundary river annex (Stikine and Taku Rivers) and the northern boundary annex fisheries (Noyes Island seine fishery and Tree Point gillnet fishery) could be negotiated strictly between the Northern Panel Alaska people and the British Columbia fishermen and biologists. The problems that exist with regard to southern stocks and Fraser River sockeye could be negotiated by the Pacific Northwest tribes, and the states of Oregon and Washington directly with Canada." Number 215 SCOTT MARSHALL, Southeast Regional Supervisor, provided background information about himself: "I came to Southeast Alaska to work on the treaty process in 1983 when I was stationed out of Anchorage and have been involved since that time. In that time, I have served on essentially every technical committee on the commission for Alaska. I served in the department as the chief fisheries scientist. As the fisheries scientist, for the Pacific Salmon Treaty affairs and since being regional supervisor, I have been on the Northern Panel. Number 239 MR. MARSHALL began his overview of the Pacific Salmon Treaty using visual aids during his report. "The most important thing to understand is that the majority of Pacific salmon, when they migrate out of their natal streams and into the Pacific Ocean, turn right and go north. This unique migratory behavior is the underlying reason why there is a need to cooperate in the management, research, conservation and enhancement of these critters. The basic issue that people need to understand is that when Pacific salmon come out of natal rivers, they spawn in the tidelands and upper reaches of rivers from Cape Falcon on the central Oregon coast to the north. As juveniles, they move out into the Pacific Ocean, migrate to the feeding grounds along the western coast of the North American continent and feed and grow. Because of that they are susceptible to harvest in various jurisdictions. Fish know no political boundaries, they go to where the herring and needlefish are. There are some significant differences among the stocks. Number 291 MR. MARSHALL said, "There are some significant differences among the stocks. First, in the South beginning at Cape Falcon on the central Oregon coast, up to about the north coast of Vancouver Island, there are significant runs of coho salmon and chum salmon that move out of Oregon and Washington that migrate to (indisc.) and feed on the southern British Columbia continental shelf and are susceptible to fisheries. For coho salmon, they are primarily susceptible to the Canadian troll fleet off the west coast of Vancouver Island and chum salmon are primarily susceptible to the net fisheries in Johnstone Strait on the east coast of Vancouver Island. In addition, there are a group of Chinook salmon which tend to spawn in the lower reaches of the Columbia River and Puget Sound; these fish are primarily susceptible to the recreational and troll fleets of Canada. The other groups of Chinook stock that come out of primarily the upper reaches of the Fraser River and the upper reaches of the Columbia River and, to some extent, small streams from the west coast of Oregon that move and migrate as far as Southeast Alaska to rear and grown. What you end up with is jurisdictions like Alaska and British Columbia and states of Washington and Oregon who all have an interest in the harvest patterns of fish that originated in their waters by other jurisdictions." Number 330 SCOTT MARSHALL continued with historical background on the fisheries discussing the first international cooperation between Alaska and Canada in the 1920s over Fraser River sockeye. "By the 1930s, the United States and Canada crafted a treaty to share in the harvest and cooperate in the management and enhancement of that stock. By the 1950s, migratory patterns of the Chinook and coho from Washington and Oregon to the west coast of Vancouver Island became fairly well known. Those catches of Chinook and coho spawned in Washington and Oregon by the Canadians was probably the impetus for renewing negotiations over a broader spectrum of fisheries issues between the countries. MR. MARSHALL continued, "In the early 1970s, there were ongoing negotiations between Canada and the United States over what we call `stocks of mutual concern.' There was a long series of negotiations through the 1970s and, at that time, the primary emphasis was one of trying to determine the extent of interceptions. Interceptions are defined for treaty purposes as stocks that spawn in one country but which are harvested by another country. At that time, the Canadians brought forth a view that the two countries ought to develop schemes for `balancing the interceptions.' Despite the lack of data, the countries began putting together reports. Canada's view at that time was that `interception balancing' ought to involve computing the ex- processor's value of the fish that spawned in Oregon and spawned in the United States and were caught in Canada and the fish spawned in Canada were caught in the United States. MR. MARSHALL said, "From 1969 and until 1982, the United States and Canada entered into `on again, off again' very intense negotiations over these issues. In 1982, in Washington we struck what we called the `Lynwood Accord' which was a draft treaty to help resolve these issues. In our judgement, and the judgement of then Governor Sheffield and Senator Ted Stevens, this treaty was not in Alaska's best interests and we asked the negotiators to go back to the table. In 1985, we finally struck a deal. Two main principles include the principle of conservation and trying to attain maximum sustained yield for our fish stocks that we share an interest in. The second principle is called the equity principle in which each country is entitled to benefits equivalent to the production of salmon originating from its waters." Number 430 MR. MARSHALL said he wanted to list what he sees as the main issues from the Department of Fish and Game's prospective that we are trying to deal with at this juncture in this very long process. "The primary issue that has separated the United States and Canada and has separated Alaska from the southern delegation has been the equity principle. MR. MARSHALL stated, "Recently, the tribes have sued us under the Baldridge stipulation because they believe the technical basis for our Chinook salmon management is flawed. The tribes have resurrected under the Baldridge stipulation their right to determine their property rights to Chinook that originate in the Puget Sound and Columbia River that are caught in Southeast Alaska. We are forced by 1996, as an agency to resolve the technical matters surrounding how to implement an abundance based management program for Chinook salmon. We are forced over the next six months to support, defend and put forth the abundance based approach for equity. This will be a major battle. Canada, over the last two years, has made a major issue of our catch of coho salmon that come out of northern British Columbia and we are in for a battle of our lives there. Under the Endangered Species Act, we are not only trying to deal with Snake River fall Chinook, but coho salmon from the southern jurisdictions have been listed as well as steelhead and incidental catches." Number 523 MR. MARSHALL said that in his opinion, "Since working in fisheries since 1969, this is a major turning point particularly for Southeast Alaska." He personally feels that the Department of Fish and Game is not staffed nor funded to deal with the broad-sweeping list of issues. Number 540 CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked Mr. Marshall how the Resources Committee could help continue the fight. MR. MARSHALL replied, "In 1986, we had a budget problem in this state, which was the first year of the implementation of the treaty with the federal funds. One of the things that happened in Southeast was that we took over $1,000,000 out of the southeast regional program in general funds and moved those to help buffer impacts in other parts of the state in that budget reduction. The problem is that we are still fighting those treaty battles and now over the years, federal funds are diminishing. We are, in my judgement, seriously underfunded at this point." Number 599 CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked Mr. Marshall to explain the abundance factor. MR. MARSHALL said, "In 1979, the treaty tribes came to the North Pacific Fishery Management Council which was just after passage of the Magnuson Act and, under the Magnuson Act, they took oversight of our troll fishery in Southeast Alaska. The treaty tribes came up at that time from the Columbia River and argued that the abundance was down from up-river stocks and because those fish migrated to and reared in Southeast Alaska and were caught all along the migratory path, they argued to the North Pacific Council to reduce Alaska's catch to provide some conservation for fair sharing. In 1980, the Council agreed and Alaska put its first numeric ceiling on Southeast Alaska fisheries. By 1985, when we signed the treaty, we had two basic choices on how to implement Chinook management: (1) was harvest ceilings in the various fisheries of troll and sport fisheries in Southeast Alaska and British Columbia; or (2) try and come up with a scheme that would share in the proportion, a harvest rate approach, a percent of the stock share. The negotiators chose harvest ceilings for the northern fishery. When abundance goes up and there is lots of fish, our fishermen would like a bigger share: When abundance goes way down there needs to be some sharing of the conservation burden. This would in essence develop a partnership between the different fishermen; an incentive to boost production if everybody shares proportionately. Beginning this year, with the forecast down on abundance of Chinook stocks coastwide, we made a proposal that we should move away from fixed ceilings to an abundance based approach. MR. MARSHALL continued his testimony, "We asked ourselves how are we going to do an in-season assessment of abundance for coastwide Chinook salmon, and we came up with a very good relationship between the post season estimated abundance and the catch during the first five days of July of our troll fishery." He went on to explain other complicated, technical issues that staff has been working on for the past six months. He said, "We proposed what we believe is a scientifically more rigorous approach and were willing to live and die by the outcome of that without knowing in advance what catch that would be. The tribes simply did not like the number and they sued us." TAPE 95-70, SIDE A Number 000 MR. AMBROSE said he thinks there is a misunderstanding on the part of the general public basically saying that Alaska needs to get out of the treaty. People do not understand that we are not signatory to the treaty. This is between the federal government and the government of Canada. Is there a mechanism other than the ratification process through the United States Senate? Is there a way that Alaska could, in fact, withdraw from the process?" MR. MARSHALL said, "Alaska cannot withdraw on its own. The United States needs to serve notice of its intent and there is a one-year waiting period. That is obviously a political decision that would be taken to the very highest levels of government. The President, himself, would be intimately involved in any decision like that to serve notice." Number 024 MR. AMBROSE asked Mr. Meacham if he knew of any other example where participants in a treaty process ended up suing each other in federal court. MR. MARSHALL answered, "By and large treaties provide no private right for redress. That is the legal jargon. It means that participants in something like the Pacific Salmon Treaty are precluded from relief from federal court. This is very unique because they didn't sue us under the treaty; they sued us as part of the Baldridge stipulation. The Baldridge stipulation in simple terms was back in 1982 when Alaska and Governor Sheffield backed away from the Lynwood Accord because it wasn't in our best interests to support that draft treaty. The tribes moved forward to exert the treaty fishing rights. What we thought we got to settle that issue was their agreement not to sue us. What they thought they got ... and what we thought they thought they got was our willingness to support ratification of the treaty. I have studied the Baldridge stipulation for years and it wasn't until this judge got involved that I understood that it meant a lot more than that." Number 052 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN referred to migratory routes and the interception of fish on the coast line. He asked, "The migratory routes do not take just the coast line into consideration, do they?" "Do we have technical studies or data that show exactly where the migratory routes of the salmon are in the Gulf of Alaska?" MR. MARSHALL responded that there are limited studies. "The primary tool we have today is the coded microwire tag. It is a very small piece of stainless steel wire, microscopic implanted in the snout of fish when they are very small. We have sampling programs to recover those tags in our coastal fisheries and that has provided a fair amount of information for the stocks that are tagged." MR. MEACHAM added that coded wire tag technology has resulted in a tremendous amount of information being made available. The panel discussed methods and accuracy of tagging various fish groups at length. Number 157 CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked Mr. Marshall if he was familiar with Representative Don Young's bill to amend the Endangered Species Act HR2275. MR. MARSHALL said he had not read the bill and said it is premature for him to comment on the specifics. "I am sure that the agency will be doing an analysis of that bill. There are many, many issues and trying to find a bill that doesn't throw the baby out with the bath water. It is real important." REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN asked Mr. Marshall to brief him on how the coded wire tags are recovered. "Is this a volunteer type activity on the part of commercial and sport fishermen or do you have people in the field that are doing sampling, et cetera.?" MR. MARSHALL said the coded wire tag program began in mid 1970s. "It is now a coordinated coastwide recovery program and our goal is to sample 20 percent of the harvests. It is the biggest single field program that I have in Southeast Alaska. We actually do the physically sampling of the commercial catch. We do Chinook and coho regionwide and we have some locations in the southern end around Ketchikan when we sample for chum salmon because we have had chum salmon programs going on in the area. The program, in my judgement, has been very successful. It does not require volunteer effort. We get tremendous cooperation from the fishermen and from the processing industry, in particular, to go into their plants and get scales, ages, interview fishermen, everything. We keep our data as precise as to location and time as possible. All of the data is computerized and shared up and down the coast on a strict timetable." Number 230 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN asked Mr. Marshall, "Is the department getting enough information from the federal observer program on high sea troll fleet to give you a good idea as to what is going on. MR. MARSHALL said, "The Chinook bycatch in those fisheries is fairly small in relation to the other Chinook catches we are talking about here. The incidents of the stocks of concern to the Pacific Salmon Commission are fairly small in those fisheries. The federal government provides reports on those, but it is such a small fraction of the catch that it is not dealt with actively." Number 245 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES referred to coded wire tagging saying that he had heard about "otolith banding" (thermal otolith marking) and asked, "Can that method could be applied to also disentangle this information?" MR. MARSHALL replied otolith banding, in certain situations, can be used. "One of the problems is there is a limited number of banding patterns that can be used. So on a coastwide program, it would require tremendous coordination and we may run into problems in developing enough unique bands. I do not see that that technology offers a lot to Chinook. I think it offers a lot to mass produced species like pinks and chums. It has been a very good program for sockeye salmon." Number 275 GARY FREITAG, Southern Southeast Regional Aquaculture Association, testified: "I am a member of the Chinook Technical Committee of the Pacific Salmon Commission. I have been on it since the very beginning. There were several comments made by the folks here suggesting how much of the decisions being made are technical in nature: How much are being allocated or political in nature. I think all along the Chinook Technical Committee has tried to strive to do something on an unbiased technical forum. I think underlying that there has always been an agenda by non-Alaskan biologists on that committee to reallocate fish to the south. It has always been there, it is very subtle, it has always been in the process. I think this last meeting that I attended, about a month ago, when we reviewed the technical merits of Alaska's abundance based approach that was proposed this year. It was the first meeting where I saw a blatant "ratchet-up" in the political allocative nature of what the technical people from the southern United States, as well as Canada, were coming in. They had an agenda, they had an agenda to stop Alaska's position from being a reasonable and logical way of going. It was obvious to me at that meeting that there was another step up in the political allocative nature of the decisions that were being made and the discussions that were being made on technical basis. MR. FREITAG said, "I have looked at Alaska's approach in being a nonstate member. It had more merit than most of the management schemes than I have seen in all the years I have been involved in this. The relationship that Scott alluded to being extremely good between the first five days and actual abundance that occurred in the past was dramatic in comparison. The variables involved here are so complex and there are so many of them, you cannot pinpoint why that works so well, but it does. In fact, the relationship was good. It is very easy when you have got 50 variables to technically point out 4 or 5 things that can not be right and that is what I think the scientists from the south used to tell this judge and she made the decision that this approach was a bunch of `hogwash.' I think it was politically stemmed and not technical. I think the state's approach, technically, is sound. The data suggests that it is a good management tool and it is the best that I have seen in all the years I have been involved in this process." Number 330 KAY ANDREW, Gillnetter, said she and her husband gillnet on the Canadian-Alaskan border. MS. ANDREW thanked the Administration and the House Resources Committee for coming to Ketchikan. She said, "We have had a lot of conflicts in the last two seasons on the border down there. Mainly, with the Canadians coming over and fishing on the American side. They do not seem to have any fear or respect of our government at all. They are allowed to do this because they are allowed to come into the state of Alaska with their gear aboard their boats. Not only gillnetters, but trollers, too. They are allowed to come over and anchor on the American side, the trollers at night, because they do not have any other place to go if they are fishing on the outside. They take great advantage of this and they abuse this privilege. I must say I am also pleased with the Coast Guard because they patrol the area down there and they arrested a lot of them and fined them with some pretty stiff fines. MS. ANDREW said, "On to the problem on hand, I think that Alaska has gotten a lot of bad publicity on this subject and we should get an active campaign going in the press to clarify our position. I do not think Alaska has done that and I think it is very important that we start fighting back so to speak. This is being tried in the press and we have not stood up and said exactly what Alaska is or has done to ratify this treaty all these years and to negotiate with British Columbia. We need to be telling Washington and Oregon and the United States, in general, and British Columbia what is really happening between us and British Columbia in the Lower 48; such as why is British Columbia able to keep four Chinook for sport fishing. We are not allowed to. Why are British Columbia trollers allowed to fish four trolling lines than our Alaska trollers are. That has been going on for years, also. Alaskan trollers have been continually taken down in the numbers of fish that they have been allowed to catch. Alaska has conserved not only in the troll fleet, but sportfishing, gillnetting, seining. Everyone has done their turn through the years to try to conserve that are going through here. Yet, where are this fish? Who can guarantee that these fish are ever going to get to the creek or streams or wherever they are supposed to be going? Alaska sat at the docks in the late 1960s and early 1970s because they over fished their stocks and they decided to rebuild them or we were not going to have fisheries and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game took the necessary measures to do this. They have rebuilt our stocks in the state, we have the best stocks of anywhere." MS. ANDREW asked, "Did we not when we became a state have a signed agreement with the United States, with the federal government that allowed us to manage our own fisheries? If that is so, how can a federal judge come in and tell us how to manage our fisheries?" She suggested that Ketchikan and Southeast should actively, in the press, encourage our residents not to travel to British Columbia. "Keep our dollars at home." She related that an Alaskan fisherman was killed in Prince Rupert this summer. MS. ANDREW further suggested, "The judge should be made to guarantee that the fish that had to go by, that were taken away from the troll fleet and the sports fishermen; can she guarantee that those fish are going to reach the migrating streams. Alaska should demand it! Why are we seeing in the paper that there is Columbia River Chinook king salmon for sale at Pike's Place Market, fresh? Who is catching these fish? Who is allowed to sell king salmon in Washington State? We are not allowed to keep them here!" She exclaimed that the Attorney General's office should become more involved and keep the fishing industry informed. Her final question was, "How can Canada be allowed to sign on a lawsuit with two Native groups in the states of Washington and Oregon? It is a foreign country!" Number 540 CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS agreed with Ms. Andrew 100 percent on all of her issues and said the committee would try to answer her questions. He continued, "The fishing boats that are coming into Alaskan waters, Senator Taylor's office had a bill passed this year to try to take care of this through the board of fish." He also expressed agreement with Ms. Andrew's recommendation to not spend money in British Columbia, especially after what has transpired. "I do not know what the legislature will be thinking about. We do have support for the fishing industry, there is a lot of support for the fishing industry in the legislature. The Attorney General's Office is involved in the legislation and one of the reasons that he was unable to attend this hearing is because he is working on this specific issue." Number 575 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN encouraged Ms. Andrew and others to join him and Senator Taylor in the fight to assert the state's rights. He said he and Senator Taylor had authored similar legislation which Senator Taylor's version passed unopposed in both houses and was put on the Governor's desk which would have required the state to scrutinize any federal mandates for cost effectiveness, constitutionality, and initiated legal challenge. There is a national movement to reassert our state's rights. There is some interesting model legislation that is being proposed, both resolutions and state statutes, and possibly some changes to the United States Constitution that would give authority to the states to repeal any federal law or regulation on a referendum with a resolution from two-thirds of the states which would give more authority back to the states to manage their own affairs. Number 623 MR. AMBROSE asked Mr. Meacham, for the point of clarification, "Who is suing who?" "Who are the parties to the suit?" MR. MEACHAM responded that the party was the confederated tribes, others have signed on in agreement with them, but they are the ones that are driving this thing. MR. AMBROSE asked if the Canadian government could submit a brief? MR. MARSHALL replied the Canadian government petitioned the court to be `amicus curiae' for another court and we objected and the court let them in. MR. AMBROSE commented in reference to Ms. Andrew's testimony saying his only comment is, "As Kay is advocating her boycott, she really should not forget our friends in Seattle." Number 644 MEREDITH MARSHALL of Ketchikan encouraged the committee and the state to continue in every way possible to assert our Alaska state sovereignty over all resource issues. "In whatever way possible in working with Congress to resolve those issues, we need to assert our sovereignty over our natural resources." She suggested that one thing the legislature can do is to provide adequate financial resources to the Department of Law and fishermen in going forward with their court battles. Money is going to drive this issue, she said and remarked the legislature should ensure there are adequate loan guarantees for the fishermen and, perhaps, forgiveness of interest for those who had their seasons cut back. Number 700 GEOFF BULLOCK, UNITED SOUTHEAST GILLNETTERS, said he echoed Ms. Andrew's comments. "The one good thing that has come out of this is that the fishing groups in Southeast Alaska are working together." He expressed amazement at department statistics showing Alaska being flatlined while Canada is catching 600,000 king salmon. He talked about concerns of the fishermen and a new coalition headed up the trollers. He said the city of Ketchikan had contributed over $18,000 and the borough contributed over $18,000 from the raw fish tax, Juneau has, as well as all the communities in Southeast Alaska. "But, it is going to take from $150,000 to $200,000 in attorney bills to keep fighting this thing. We are not in a position to step back and say, okay state, take it and we will work with you. This is our livelihoods. We have to be there to file our own papers and to work on it with the state." TAPE 95-70, SIDE B Number 000 MR. BULLOCK said, "The state is paying 3 percent for hatchery, they are paying more for the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute. If we are going to continue to fight, we need the resources to do it and that is one of things that we are going to have to come to you this year to say help." Number 007 LONNIE HAUGHTON, Ketchikan Trollers Committee, thanked the committee for their attention to this issue. He said it had been several governors and several parties since Alaska has had such clear focus from the Administration. He urged the committee to get the funding to fight this thing through. "As Scott Marshall mentioned earlier, this is a major turning point in the future of Southeast Alaska fisheries - king, coho, steelhead. If we can let a half-baked pseudo-science dictate the management of our king salmon fishery, then the same people using the same half-baked science before the same judge will be managing our other fisheries in the same way. If three or four Snake River salmon can devastate our Chinook fisheries here, three or four sockeye from the coast of Oregon, could end up making a major change in the Sand Point fishery or Kodiak fishery. It is just a matter of someone starting the legal process using the half-baked science. Now is the time for the state to make the longterm commitment to follow through on this." Number 060 ANGELO L. MARTIN said he had been involved with king salmon in the Ketchikan community since 1980. He related his experiences assisting the fishing community and working with Senator Robin Taylor's office to implement fisheries programs. He said his feeling is if the fishermen can not catch the fish, they will not want to raise fish. He said there are more hatchery fish in the Ketchikan area than wild stocks. He suggested that the price of fish is too low, somebody is controlling these fish prices; drawing the fish prices down and putting us into this type of situation. He encouraged the committee and the state to stand up and yell a little bit louder. Number 180 BARRY McCLELLAND, commercial fisherman, remarked that he had been a member of the Alaska delegation to the treaty talks in 1984-1985, appointed by Governor Sheffield. "I have a knowledge of some of the problems presented by the treaty and the Endangered Species Act. I have read the Baldridge stipulation and other related documents, I think the problem confronting us here which is really another wave in a continuing assault on our fisheries by the down- south interests. This is a very, very serious problem, and, I for one, have not seen the kind of reaction that I would hope to come out of this because what we are threatened with is a closure of our access to a very precious resource, the Chinook resource. That closure is a result of, indirectly, the Boldt decision in 1974 which awarded 22 treaty tribes in Washington and Oregon 50 percent of the fish, run by run, river per river, in the major watersheds of Washington and Oregon. MR. McCLELLAND stated, "To fight this and to retain our access to this resource, it is going to require an extraordinary effort by the state and not only by the state, but by all the organizations that represent the people who value this resource. I am speaking not only of commercial interests but of the charter interests, the sports fishermen. I think you ladies and gentlemen in the legislature are going to need to consider appropriating additional funds to help the state fight this problem. Many towns and organizations in Southeast Alaska have contributed money to a legal fund that has been set up to help out. Speaking for myself, I hope that we can see a ground swell come and get going. I hope the state will try to publicize the matter and you, Chairman Williams, are doing a good job publicizing it here. I think we need more of that. I urge you to put this on the front burner and to do everything you can because the citizens of Southeast who value this resource are counting on the legislature and the state's agencies and the state's officials to defend us in this matter." Number 240 BERNARD GUTHRIE, commercial fisherman, expressed concern with the media. He asked, "Does the federal treaty conflict and violate our state rights to manage our own fisheries. What is the Administration's stand? What is the legislature going to pursue?" MR. GUTHRIE asked for a copy of the Pacific Salmon Treaty, copies of testimony and a copy of the meeting minutes. He recommended as the committee proceeds with the treaty, not to include the Endangered Species Act. Number 280 MR. MARTIN said in Southern Southeast Alaska, there is more king salmon now than there ever has been. "If we are doing something wrong, what is it?" Number 287 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN referenced earlier testimony regarding natural stock salmon in the Snake River and asked Mr. Meacham to verify if there is and how much. "Are we talking about protecting hatchery fish here with the Endangered Species Act." MR. MEACHAM said it was impossible to answer the question directly. "The reason being that hatcheries have been in existence for a considerable period of time down there and there has been a mix of hatchery and wild fish to the extent that it is really impossible to tell. There have been some wild fish that have managed to stay wild, but there is no question that the hatchery stocks have interacted with the wild fish and they are behaving as one in many instances." Number 318 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said it seemed prudent to him for the state of Washington to increase their hatchery effort in that area instead of just going to court to shut our fisheries down. "Has anybody talked to them about that or is the state of Alaska wanting to offer some assistance and expertise in that area to help them build their stocks back up somewhat. Is that possible?" MR. MEACHAM said, "We have come a long, long way in terms of implementing good hatchery management processes in Alaska. Some of the hatcheries on the Columbia and other locations in the Lower 48 did not function well have resulted in doing more harm than good. At this point, we have the capabilities to do some tremendous things and increase production significantly through hatchery operations. They have to be carefully controlled and releases have to be carefully planned. Unfortunately, some of the constraints associated with the Endangered Species Act are such that it precludes reasonable efforts in terms of producing fish in the hatchery." He talked about the willingness of the Department of Fish and Game to participate and help them out. He said he was confident there is a willingness to offer our expertise both in technology and basic fisheries management which is seriously needed. Number 363 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said REPRESENTATIVE DON YOUNG is in the process of working on the Endangered Species Act. He asked if there is any communication going on as far as asking the act to be amended to make it easier for hatchery fish programs to be expanded. MR. MEACHAM answered in the affirmative saying there are a number of beneficial provisions within that bill. He explained provisions in the bill and said the bill is a step in the right direction. Number 406 MR. AMBROSE thanked the committee for coming to Ketchikan and hoped the committee came to the realization that this issue is not just a regional issue. Number 413 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN talked about the `tenth amendment movement' he and Senator Taylor are working on. He said the Governor had vetoed that one particular piece of legislation. He encouraged the audience and members of the public to let the Governor know that the people would like the state's rights asserted, and to be sovereign over the federal government the way the framers of our Constitution intended it to be rather than the other way around. Number 433 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN thanked Representative Williams as the Chairman of the Resources Committee for holding this meeting. "Coming from Kodiak, it is just as important to me as it is to you." He thanked the audience for their comments and encouraged further comments be submitted during the legislation session so the legislature will be better informed to make appropriate decisions. Number 450 REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA thanked Mr. Meacham, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Botelho for providing additional information on the negotiation. As a former member of the Yukon Salmon Negotiation Treaty between Canada and the United States. She said, "I firmly understand the problem you have here in the Southeast." She hoped that ANILCA Title VIII will not be confused with the Pacific Salmon Treaty problem. "Otherwise, that will draw problems with the rural legislators during the legislative session." She recommended not having these two issues together in the same fight. Number 480 CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS thanked everyone for participating in the oversight hearing. He said, "We have learned here today that Alaska has done a very excellent job in taking a conservative management approach to our salmon stocks. The science behind our salmon management is very complex as you have heard, but it gives us a very sound basis on which to set our harvests limits. CO- CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS in conclusion, "Clearly, there are outside interests who want us to limit our salmon harvests and pad their pockets. It is flat out wrong. We all understand that a federal judge can not understand the science that we have lived with for many years here in Alaska. I do think it is right for us to be in court and I will lobby for what the Administration would like to see happen and see how this legislature can help. I will work with the Administration on that. Alaskans are not responsible for the decline in salmon runs south of us. We are not responsible and we should not be held accountable for any of the blame. Unfortunately, our fishing industry is forced to fight for survival in the courts. Other harvesting industries have been fighting for their life in courts for sometime now. These harvesting industries have many things in common. I have been and will continue to get our different resource industries to work together. The bottom line is that if our resource extraction industries are going to survive, we must all work together." Number 530 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to conduct, CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS adjourned the House Resources Committee meeting at 12:15 p.m.