Ms. HOKMAN. I am sorry, sir, but I don't have those figures. I think Mr. Fullerton could probably help you there.

Mr. MCCLOSKEY. You stated in your testimony that you recognize that the Klamath is a substantial source.

Ms. HOKMAN. Yes.

Mr. MCCLOSKEY. So, your commercial fishing off the shore would be hurt badly if the Klamath fishery were destroyed?

Ms. HOKMAN. Yes. In this area, yes, definitely, it would.

Mr. MCCLOSKEY. Now, this year there has been a 15-percent cutback.

Ms. HOKMAN. That's right.

Mr. MCCLOSKEY. By shortening the ordinary season by 1 month. Am I correct in that?

Ms. HOKMAN. That's true.

Mr. MCCLOSKEY. Did your association resist that cutback of 1 month?

Ms. HOKMAN. We did not resist it. We worked with California Fish and Game-well, we are working with the Fish and Game Department.

Mr. MCCLOSKEY. Now, you gave testimony in your statement that the chinook had been cut 64 percent; the coho 65 percent and the steelhead 80 percent.

Ms. HOKMAN. That's true.

Mr. MCCLOSKEY. What are those cut from? What year was your base year?

Ms. HOKMAN. Probably prior to 1970.

Mr. MCCLOSKEY. So that since 1970 there has been a really substantial decline, both in the salmon and the steelhead fishery in the Klamath?

Ms. HOKMAN. Yes. Well, this is northern California.

Mr. MCCLOSKEY. Northern California.

Well, you know, with those 2 drought years and an absolute prohibition in the river of commercial fishing, what is a fair cutback in the ocean fishing, because if we want to restore the fishing both for you and the Indian, is a 15-percent cutback of offshore commercial fishing enough?

Ms. HOKMAN. Well, we feel it is in view of the fact that we recommend no gill netting at all on the Klamath.

Mr. MCCLOSKEY. Well, give me an idea of your estimate. You see, we have no idea of what has been taken. In 1978 the BIA's regulations that we opposed was essentially predicated on allowing, as I recall, about 12,000 subsistence and ceremonial; 8,000 sport and then 15,000 that they were going to allow be taken commercially. Do you have any estimate from any sources as to what actually was taken commercially in 1978?

Mr. HENKE. You mean in the offshore as well as in the river? Mr. MCCLOSKEY. No, just out of the river.

Mr. HENKE. Oh boy. You know, I think that would be an impossibility, but I would say there was a heck of a lot more than, you know, most people realized.

Mr. MCCLOSKEY. Well, our problem is this; What we are trying to do is to save the fishing both for the Indians that need them and for the commercial and sports fishermen.

Fifteen thousand is being taken commercially out of the river as opposed to 150,000 fish being taken offshore--that makes whatever we do in the river insignificant.

Now, how do we get a grip on how many salmon that enter the Klamath are being taken offshore, as opposed to being taken in the river by commercially done gillnetting?

Mr. HENKE. Well, I think Mr. Fullerton addressed that question. He said there is no way of being able to handle the fish resource without first being able to count what is being taken off the river, subsistence and otherwise.

Mr. MCCLOSKEY. And that is 3 years that we need. And what happens during the next 3 years? You have all recommended a moratorium on the commercial take of salmon in the Klamath.

Secretary Andrus honored it this year and I think we will put pressure on him to continue to honor it as long as the fishery is not restored.

And from everybody's standpoint I gather that we would like to restore: (1) Subsistence fishing; (2) Sports fishing; and (3) if there is commercial fishing on the Klamath, we recognize that the Indians ought to have the right to commercially fish.

But all three of those depend on the take that is done offshore. What I am trying to get a grip on is how much is being taken offshore in northern California.

We are going to take 3 years to find that out? Is that where we stand?

You think that a 15-percent cut is enough, but nobody knows whether it is or isn't.

Ms. HOKMAN. The 15 percent was to allow for fish possibly lost during the drought years, you know, caused by the drought.

Mr. MCCLOSKEY. All right. Well, I think I understand, but in any event, you have no figures as to how much the 4,000 boats and 7,000 trollers take in terms of salmon in any given year out of the Klamath?

Can you give us an idea of what they take in any given year in northern California total?

Ms. HOKMAN. The commercial fishermen on the ocean? I am sure we can find out.

Mr. MCCLOSKEY. Well, somebody in the rear-

A VOICE [interrupting]. I know how many fish come out of the Klamath. They estimate 20 percent of their take in salmon off the Pacific coast come out of the Klamath River.

Mr. MCCLOSKEY. Twenty percent of the total commercial take in the Pacific coast?

A VOICE. Of Chinooks; not cohos.

Mr. MCCLOSKEY. Of Chinooks. That comes out of the Klamath?

A VOICE. Out of the Klamath.

Mr. MCCLOSKEY. How many fish are actually taken?

A VOICE. I don't know.

Mr. MCCLOSKEY. You don't know that. All right, we will try to clear that up.

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. Clausen?

Mr. CLAUSEN. Mrs. Norris, I wonder if you could just briefly expand on the ceremonial fishing. Was the ceremonial fishing es

sentially in groups or would it be just one or two or three members?

Mrs. NORRIS. Well, the one that I was talking about, bringing that fish in down the mouth of the river, it was just one man that does it and like I tell you, his name was John Shortman. He was the last man to do it. He died in 1910.

But the deerskin dance and jump dance-there's five men to that.

Mr. CLAUSEN. I see. So, there would be five men?

Mrs. NORRIS. Five men go to the sweathouse and they pray for 10 days.

Mr. CLAUSEN. I see.

Mrs. NORRIS. Then they hold a conference, just like you people are doing right now. Talking over what they are going to do, Mr. CLAUSEN. But the people who actually had that ceremonial fishing right, was that made up of a group of people or would there be one or two or three tribal members who would actually do the fishing?

Mrs. NORRIS. Well, like I told you before, when that man prays over that and then the rest of them can go on fishing whatever they want.

Now, I would like to answer about that fishing deal. How come just a few fishermen fish now and the salmon is going out. No more fish. In my day there were 3 canneries and 30 boats to a cannery.

Mr. CLAUSEN. I yield.

Mr. MCCLOSKEY. Mrs. Norris, one question. You indicated that you really didn't want to eat the fish once they came into the mouth of the river? People ate the fish that were caught offshore that were healthy?

Mrs. NORRIS. Well, sure they are healthy fish.

Mr. MCCLOSKEY. In the oldtime cannery——

Mrs. NORRIS. I got news for you. Indians don't waste fish.

Mr. MCCLOSKEY. I appreciate that. I am afraid that we do.

Mrs. NORRIS. We use every bit of it. I see the sportsmen fish and they cut the heads off and the tails off and everything else. Mr. MCCLOSKEY. I wanted to ask you this question.

In the old days, those 3 canneries and those 30 boats per cannery, was the fish that was taken offshore that went into the cannery or was it fish that came out of the river that went into canneries?

Mrs. NORRIS. Where else are they going to get the fish? It was the river.

Mr. MCCLOSKEY. You did take fish out of the mouth of the river for the cannery?

Mrs. NORRIS. Out of the mouth of the river.

Mr. MCCLOSKEY. Would you have any objections if we banned gill nets for fishing in the future?

Mrs. NORRIS. Well, why take the gill nets off when there always has been with nets?

Mr. MCCLOSKEY. Well, the recommendation of the other three panelists was that we ban gill nets.

You would not agree with that, I take it?

Mrs. NORRIS. I didn't say that.

Mr. MCCLOSKEY. Well, let me ask this question. All three of you recommended that we ban gill nets, as I understood it.

Am I wrong?

Mr. HENKE. In our negotiations here, Pete, we made a direct statement regarding that issue and if I can-in reference to negotiating platforms, what we have asked for here is that once we made a determination of what these Federal reservation fishing rights consist of that the Federal Government consider buying back these rights and that the reservation council wants it esdablished that they will sell back these rights to the Federal Government and that they are qualified Indians of the reservation-then from that point on

Mr. MCCLOSKEY [interrupting]. Wait a minute. Let me make sure that I understand that.

Is it the opinion of your group that there is precedent for a legal right to commercially fish with gill nets on this river?

Mr. HENKE. No.

Mr. MCCLOSKEY. You don't know?

Mr. HENKE. We don't know.

Mr. MCCLOSKEY. All right. Your recommendation on page 8 is that nets for subsistence fishing should be a maximum length of no more than 50 feet and nor more than one per fisherman at any one time.

Mr. HENKE. That is the best we can determine for a traditional net, according to the Indians of the reservation. That is a traditional sized net.

That net would be used to fish in a traditional manner. For personal family consumption.

Mr. MCCLOSKEY. All right. I understand now. Thank you.

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. Clausen?

Mr. CLAUSEN. Yes.

Let me just briefly get back to this statement by Ms. Hokman. I understand that you are making this statement on behalf of Zeke Grader, who is general manager and counsel for the organization?

Ms. HOKMAN. That is right.

Mr. CLAUSEN. So, the question that I would submit to you, I think would probably have to be submitted for the record after you have had a discussion with Zeke so it would spring from an agreed position that you have.

I am interested in this point that we have sought to clear up concerning the controversy surrounding the Klamath River salmon fishing and I do not think that we fully understand all the problems of the people who are part of the reservation.

No one knows all the problems clearly.

Quote-Among those belonging to our member associations are fishermen who have reservation rights. We have sought their advice and the advice of others knowledgeable of the situation for guidance-unquote.

I would like to have you or Mr. Grader give us more information as to what kind of advice you have received as a result of those consultations.

You don't have to respond at this point, but it is the kind of question I will be asking.

And also, quote-Our organization has offered to work with responsible Indian leaders to restore the salmon runs of the Klamath/Trinity system-unquote.

Could you also indicate who you mean by "responsible Indian leaders"? This, again, could be a followup, unless you know just off the top of your head.

But since this is Mr. Grader's statement you probably don't want to answer right now?

Ms. HOKMAN. That's right.

Mr. CLAUSEN. So, if you would do that, I would sure appreciate it. Thank you very much.

Mr. BREAUX. If there are no other questions the Chair thanks the panel very much for your testimony.

The next panel that we would invite up is a panel of Hoopa Indian Reservation representatives: Mr. Peter Masten, Mr. Lyle Pole, Mr. Charles J. Moon.

If they would at this time please take their seats at the witness table, the committee will be pleased to receive their testimony. STATEMENT OF PETER MASTEN, REPRESENTATIVE, HOOPA VALLEY INDIAN RESERVATION

Mr. MASTEN. Thank you very much.

With me today, Mr. Chairman, is Mr. Lyle Pole, who is a member of the Hoopa Valley Tribal Council.

First I would like to express my appreciation for the interest that this committee has shown in holding this hearing in Eureka. You have my written statement and what I would like to do is to summarize that statement for you.

Well, this fishing problem that we have on the reservation has attracted, we believe, a lot of attention through the media and we believe not entirely because of the concerns that people have for the Indians, but because of pressures being brought by the nonIndian commercial and sports fishing groups.

This is not a very good microphone.

Mr. BREAUX. I agree.

Mr. MASTEN. In line with that, we totally reject the often quoted charge that Indians are destroying the fishery.

The Hoopa tribe has had for years a fishing ordinance and we have the capabilities through our tribal government to regulate and enforce and provide the necessary enhancement programs to carry out and provide for fishing, adequate fishing, and fishing for the future of our people.

We oppose commercial fishing, as has been stated by several of the panelists today. We do, however, believe that we have the right, the legal right, to fish commercially if we so desire.

In order to do that we believe there is a workable method in which that can be done and we believe that commercial fishing must be controlled by the tribe.

It would work something like this: Tribes would have their own canneries and their own smokehouses. The tribe would own those enterprises. The tribe would issue permits to individual tribal members through some process of drawing out of a hat possibly.