while these few troublesome Indians are making the fast and easy dollar the rest of us catch no salmon. And what some are calling subsistence fishing is partially smoking some salmon, canning it and offering it for sale. Now Walt Lara speaks of poor logging practices as one of the reasons for the salmon decline! As he is a logger himself, why doesn't he make it known to these logging companies the reasons of which he speaks, or is this just a noise he makes at these meetings to impress people? As for having Indian wardens or having the Yuroks and Hupa Indians make their own rulings there is no way they will agree on any subject as I think Mr. Joe Weller from the Hoopa B.I.A. Office will agree. I have attended many meetings and I have yet to hear the two groups in accord on anything. As for commercial fishing on the Klamath River, I believe it should be banned completely, as there are a few who will continue to abuse their fishing rights. I'm speaking for myself now and firmly believe the Indians do not deserve fishing rights as they will continue to abuse the rights by false needs, such as "ceremonial fishing". Speaking as one who has been there, I do not see any way they (the Indians) can govern the fishing situation. The tribe is small and everyone is related. So where do we separate fairness, favoritism and lawful right? I do believe we need impartial people in these positions. I remain Sincerely yours, MRS. JESSIE J. EXLINE. SPORTSMAN R. V. PARK & CAMP GROUND, HON JOHN B. BREAUX, Chairman Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation and the Environment, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR SIR: Once again I am attempting to enlighten a group of people employed by a government originally designed to protect and watch over my interests as far as my well being and rights are concerned. To this date, I as well as others in the community of Klamath, Calif. have been totally ignored, abused, threatened and driven to the point of bankruptcy by the lack of interest shown by our government officials, law enforcement bodies and mainly by the ruthless arrogance shown us by top officials of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. One has only to read closely the current regulations published by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Let me explain my understanding of what subsistence fishing under the present regulations means: For simplicity sake let's imagine a tennis net 100 ft. long and 13 ft. deep stretched across a narrow portion of the river. This net is weighted by lead weights on the bottom and has cork floats to keep it upright on the water. It is primarily made of monofilament so that it is impossible for fish to see even during daylight hours. The mesh size of these nets have been found to be from 7 inches to as little as 2 inches catching even small steelhead trout. It is not uncommon to hear an Indian boast that he makes enough in three nights fishing with 2 nets of 100 feet length during the spawning runs to pay for a brand new 4 wheel drive pickup truck in the $12,000 range, or a new boat and motor with just a couple of nights fishing! Many Indian families will tell us they cannot eat 30 salmon a year, averaging 14 lbs. but even as I write this letter, Raymond Matz, a terminated Indian is subsistence fishing on the river and he is using 8 nets and under B.I.A. sanction he is doing this legally. Gerry Patterson, a man claiming the rights of an Indian, is using 3 nets at this very moment for subsistence fishing. This man has only % Indian blood in his bloodline and yet the B.I.A. allows this man to fish. I leave it to your imagination or judgment the toll these two men alone take on a single spawning run. Today as I write this brief there is 38 nets in the river owned by 5 Indians, or so called Indians, who I might add are known traffickers in the selling of salmon. In my opinion, there is going to be blood spilled on the river this summer unless your committee and our congress act immediately to: 1. Terminate the eligible Indians for their hunting and fishing rights if this is truly their right which I doubt, or 2. Buy out all existing businesses, etc. and turn this into a true reservation under Indian care, or 3. Return the lower 20 miles of the Klamath River back to private ownership with no B.I.A. involvement whatsoever! Only by using one of the above alternatives will peace ever come to this area and the loss of life to some innocent person be averted. Gentlemen, we've fought for 4 years to bring this to your attention, now in the name of God, do something. Respectfully, WILLIAM DAVIES, Manager. VIEWPOINT: The Way I See It! Written in a Q&A style. "Fact and Fiction on the Klamath" is a well-researched opinion on the controversy surrounding the fishing rights on the Klamath River in Northern California. The continual depletion of the salmon in this biue-ribbon river is a growing concern to many. Indians jeel that they have an inherent right to continue to gill-net the fish, while sportsman say the Indians are catching greater numbers of salmon than the river can .replenish. On the other hand, the Indians feel that the sportfisherman is the one to blame. There is much turmoil, and unless positive action is taken soon, it may well be too late to save the salmon on the Klamath River! Mr. Jim Denny is a native son of California who owns a 1400-acre ranch in Scoil Valley. He has been a practicing conservationist for the past 25 years and is a member of Salmon Unlimited. Associated Sportsmen of California, Trout Unlimited. Klamath River Sportsman Association, Scott River Sportsman Association and the Audahon "Society. An avid salmon and steelhead fisherman since the age of seven, Denny says he has "watched the steelhead and salmon decline in numbers from the hundreds of thousands to only a few hundred!"-Ed. FACT AND FICTION Where is the Klamath River and what is its significance to our 11 western states? As a producer of anadromous fish it starts at Iron Gate Dam in Siskiyou County and flows 190 miles to enter the ocean at the town of Klamath in Del Norte County. The Trinity River, its largest tributary, drains Trinity County so, in all, the river lies in four counties -Trinity, Del Norte, Humboldt and Siskiyou. The Klamath River has been the premier salmon steelhead river of the West for years. drawing hundreds of thousands of fishermen and creating millions of dollars in economic benefits for the whole Pacific Coast. The population of the area is 165.000 of which 8000 are native Americans. Will anadromous fish runs survive in the Klamath? Yes, according to spokesmen for the State of California, the Department of Interior and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. But this is absolutely not true if the policies of these government agencies are allowed to continue. What are these policies? The policies are to force commercial gillnetting to become an accomplished fact on the Klamath whether the Indians want it or not. These agencies say, without court proof, that the Indians have a right to fish commercially in direct violation of California law. The agencies say yes, because the 1975 Matts Arnett decision upholds Indian rights to fish for food. It does not mention the word commercial. The only court tested valid law at the present time is California Fish and Game Code Section 8434, which prohibits the netting and sale of fish from the Klamath. There were never any treaties giving Indians fishing rights anywhere in the State of California. What is the trust responsibility of the Department of Interior and Bureau of Indian Affairs to reservation Indians and how are they discharging that responsibility in this instance? They are charged with helping all Indians equally. . Of the 8000 Indians, they are trying to make less than 100 rich and ignoring the other 7900. This must be considered as extreme in.competence. Have the government agencies involved made an honest effort to reach the legitimate Indian leaders? Their answer is yes. But the fact is no! Until Secretary of Interior, Cecil Andrus, came to the coast in September, no real Indian voice was heard. Ms. Sue Hvalsoe and. Tom Frederichs. Bureau of Indian Affairs employees, have consistently done everything in their power to avoid any contact with the legitimate Indian leaders, including recommending against holding an election on the gill-net issue. Thousands of letters and phone calls pointing out the terrible errors being made were simply disregarded by the government factions involved. Who is fishing commercially? The Bureau of Indian Affairs says, "representative Indians." Yurok Walter Lara, the leader of the less than 100 renegade Indians fishing for profit, is the reputed president of an organization called the Klamath Indian Conservation Association. But these Indians represent only themselves. They are out for a fast buck as long as the fish last. The Klamath River Conservation Association is the brainchild of a well-known Bureau of Indian Affairs lawyer. They have never spent one second of time or one penny of money in any conservation effort. It is common knowledge that Walter Lara has no standing in the Yurok Tribal organization, or any other official Indian entity. The official representatives of the Yuroks. Karoks and Hoopa's have told the bureaucracies involved that they are diametrically opposed to commercial fishing on the Klamath. What has the State of California done to protect the resource on the Klamath? Nothing. The State Department of Natural Resources made an illegal deal to give 30.000 salmon to the Indians now fishing. This deai leaves the sportsmen and legitimate Indianswith virtually nothing. It is both insane and outrageous that the government of the State of California wouldback a small group of opportunists on the : by Jim Denny Klamath River, while ignoring the legitimate Our elected representatives at both the state and federal level have worked night and day to try and pound some sense into our governor and the federal bureaucrats. The California Legislature and Congress both passed joint resolutions asking for a moratorium on commercial gill-netting in the Klamath. The city governments, county governments and chambers of commerce of the area all passed the same resolution. Did our misguided administrators get the message? They did not! Government of the people, by the people. for the people is not practiced by this group of dictatorial individuals. They have forgotten we put them in office and pay their wages. They do things their way. The Bureau of Indian Affairs, Huey Johnson, resources secretary of the State of California. Forrest Girard. Department of Interior. Sue Hvalsoe and Tom Frederichs, Bureau of Indian Affairs, have all told us one. thing and then done the opposite. This sort of performance from our employees must stop. and stop right now. In private business they would all have been out of work by now. What can fishermen expect from the Klamath in the future? The regulations written and then re-written by the Bureau of Indian Affairs are supposed to solve all problems. The Bureau of Indian Affairs blames the decline of fish on logging. farming, sportfishing and commercial fishing in the ocean. Our state and federal overlords claim they are saving the fish by taking 30,000 of them cut of the river. And the Federal Bureau of Wildlife enforcement agents imply that they have everything under control. But the facts are: The Klamath is going to die as a viable source of anadromous fish if these people are allowed to pursue their present policies. -The two big losers will be sportfishermen and Indian families who have traditionally used salmon as winter food. The price of a fishing license will still be nine dollars. You can enjoy watching the river water on its way to the ocean. Sit long enough to get your nine dollars worth. With 71 agents and a command post manned by the State of California on the river, three-and-one-haif tons of illegal salmon were seized, by accident. These fish were caught right under the noses of the agents, while they were enforcing a moratorium. -The only new factor involved is commercial netting. The other factors have been with us for years. You, the affected people should not put up with these indefensible actions any longer. In closing. I want to make one important point. This is not and never has been a ciash between Indians and sportsmen. The battle is between the people and a few of their selfserving elected and appointed represen tatives. WESTERN OUTDOORS / FEBRUARY 1979 Hon. JOHN B. BREAUX, KLAMATH, CALIF., May 24, 1979. Chairman, Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Commission and Environment, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR SIR: The Klamath River, being the second largest river in the great state of California, seems to be the less known in regards to solid fish information. Known facts are, this river has a very large drainage area, many, many, streams with log jams, spawning beds covered with silt and some streams blocked by nets. Also, in the summertime, low and warm water. All of these conditions and many more have helped the Salmon and Steelhead decline. This river should be studied for several years in order to develop good solid information. This information is needed in order to protect the Salmon and Steelhead fishery for Indian consumption and to help support Ocean fishery. Regardless of what stream or river these fish use for spawning grounds, they must use larger streams or rivers in order to return to the ocean. When studying a map of the west coast of Oregon, Washington and California, you don't find many rivers that Salmon and Steelhead use, therefore the Klamath must be protected from commercial fishing. The Klamath River must be protected from abuse for its plays a very important roll in the economy of the Del Norte County, as well as the State of California. The River draws many, many tourists, sports fishermen and vacationers. This creates employment and revenue. All aspects of Del Norte County feel the effect of this turmoil. Mr. Andrus has stated, after seeing the Klamath River, that it is not large enough to support commercial fishing. However, while Federal regulations prohibit the selling of Klamath River Salmon, it is still being done! It doesn't make sense that we have a 3 mile limit on fishing in the Ocean from the mouth of the River and yet drift net fishing is allowed closer than 3 miles from the mouth after it empties into the Pacific Ocean. These fish must spend several days close to the mouth in order to acclimate themselves to fresh water and move up stream. At this time, it's like fishing in a bath tub. A very considerable amount of time and effort must be spent in improving the spawning streams in order to maintain the natural spawning stock. The Klamath River is much too valuable a river and contributes too heavily to the major economy of Del Norte County than to allow a few individuals to deplete the Salmon and Steelhead fishery. This is being done by allowing unenforceable regulations and not enough enforcement officials on the river. Also this river is too long to be properly protected by such few enforcement officials. In the Del Norte Triplicate, dated April 14, 1979, an article was published from the California Department of Fish and Game, stating it could be assumed that the same ratio of fish was taken from the Klamath River as the Columbia River. There's no way these two rivers can be compared; either in water shed, fish escapement, amount of running water, or the amount of fish taken. In summary, I recommend that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service employ several Biologists and Federal Marshalls in order to collect valuable data on the Salmon and Steelhead population and enforcement of the sale of Salmon and Steelhead. This would allow time to accumulate needed data to ensure that at some future date, maybe commercial_fishing could be allowed. However, it's doubtful because of the size of the Klamath River. This would enable everyone to watch the progress of the fish population when the spawning areas have been restored, and at the same time preserve the Ocean Fishery, tourism, sportsmen, economy and general well being of the entire population of Del Norte County. Again, far too many business and individuals depend upon the Klamath River to allow it's present turmoil and decline to continue. Sincerely, GLEN STRAWN. Hon. JOHN BREAUX, AMERICAN INDIAN DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION, Chairman, House Subcommittee on Fishery, Wildlife and the Environment, Washington, D.C. DEAR SIR: This letter is being sent to you at the request of the Klamath River Indian Wildlife Conservation Assocaition. The plight of the Klamath River Indian fishermen is indeed a study in pathos. They are beset on all sides in their struggle for economic surival. They are blamed unfairly for the depletion of the once famed Klamath River salmon fishery. They have been threatened with a severity of law enforcement problems, which pose a threat to a peaceful resolution of their grievances and rights under the law. They are being deprived of equality of rights to earn a living for their families through commercial fishing on the Klamath River while non-Indian commercial fishermen have entitlement to fish commercially in the open sea for salmon from the same schools of fish which in a matter of days or weeks will be entering the Klamath River to move upstream to spawn. A study of the anthropological history of the several Klamath River Indian tribal cultures, customs and traditions along with their relationships to the historical data on the salmon fishery in the Klamath River reveal the following information: In 1850 the salmon fishery was described as being "so plentiful . . . that in fording the stream, it was with difficulty that they could induce their horses to make the attempt on account of the river being alive with the finny tribe." In 1873 Stephen Powers, a writer turned anthropologist, reported. . . "they catch an enormous quantity of fish: William McGarvey says he has often seen a ton of dried salmon hanging in the smoky attic of a cabin.” In the October 1932 issue of California Fish and Game, writer Ruth Kellett Roberts describes the conservation practices of the Klamath River Indians. In a comparison of the Indian and white practices, Roberts states: "To the Indian hunting was not a sport; it was a means of obtaining his food supply, and the killing of wildlife was limited to his necessity for sustenance. To destroy this supply meant nothing short of self-destruction. "The white pioneers of this region killed off great herds of elk and deer for their hides and left the carcasses to be devoured by the buzzards. The modern 'sportsman' catches steelhead and salmon for the sport and in many cases takes a quantity far greater than he has any use for and leaves them on the shore to rot. Prowess as a killer of wildlife is still mistaken by many as an indication of superior sportsmanship." In 1930 Stanford University completed an extensive study on the Klamath River fishery, covering the period from 1915 to 1928. So far it is the most authoritative research on the Klamath River fishery. The Introduction states in part: "A condition of increasing depletion was not sufficiently evident on the Klamath to be convincing to those most interested. In fact, opinions to the contrary were commonly held, some asserting that the "run" was not only maintaining itself but that it was gradually building up. There is very little exact information concerning fishing operations on the Klamath River previous to 1912, and no really dependable statistics are available relating to the catch before that time. During the period of placer mining on the river, large numbers of salmon were speared or otherwise captured on or near their spawning beds, and if credence is given to the reports of old miners, there then appeared the first and perhaps major cause of early depletion." Under the "Section" Depletion, the 1930 report reveals that the salmon catch from the Klamath River from 1915 to 1928 decreased from 1,232,000 pounds to 308,000, while during this same period the number of fishing boats increased from 40 to 140. This led to the following observations and conclusions in the Stanford Report. "It has been said, even of late, that the salmon population of Klamath River is holding its own. That this is not the case, and that rapid depletion of the stock is not only threatened, but is actually under way, will appear." "Since a greatly increased effort has not resulted in a corresponding increase of the catch, the only inference to be made is that the supply has diminished." "In 1921 the writer spent some time along the river and its main tributaries in an attempt to learn something of the migration of the salmon. In interviews at the time it was constantly affirmed by people living in the region that the supply of salmon has been greatly depleted in recent years.' "No trustworthy evidence is at hand which may be invoked to show that the supply of salmon is on the increase, or that the stock is being maintained, when on the contrary there is ample reason to believe that the fishery will not long stand the draft that is now being levied against it." "Depletion of the Klamath salmon is not only apparent, but it seems to be progressing at an alarming rate. There is evidence also that artificial propagation alone is not able to cope with the situation." Prior to the 1930 report, it was the considered opinion of most knowledgeable fishermen that the ocean catch was not contributing in any substantial way to the depletion of the Klamath fishery, because they presumed that the salmon during their ocean life did not go very far away from the mouth of the river system in which spawned. Research made by marine biologists established conclusively that ocean migrations of salmon were extensive. Klamath River salmon were caught as |