saying "You jump first." And we rowed pretty far out there thinking who wa's going first. Either it was going to take our life or take us both. We jumped

out and caught one of the waves that was pushing us back It must not of been

our time. We got on shore and, man, my cast was all wet and I didn't know what to think, you know.

FA: What happened to the boat?

MV:

We didn't find the boat until the next day. We shined our light around and everything. They seen us going out. They knew we were going to go out.

FA: They served you no paper or anything at all.

MV: They didn't give us nothing.

MV: They just attacked you.

MV:

They just seemed like they set it up, you know, just to see, you know, if we could handle it or not, I guess (Unintelligble) what it supposed to be and, (*) I lost a good net and I hate doing something like that, you know, especially with a guy that has a cast on. Lucky I could swim with one leg or else I probably would of never made it. I'd probably

·

almost lost my life

be out there with the sea lions today. (Conversation garbled for a while.) FA: Now a study was made by Stanford University which lasted from 1915 to 1928. One of the conclusions at the end of the 14 year period was that the fishery in the Klamath River was being depleted at an alarming rate and that it was being depleted because of over fishing. Who was over fishing? The over fishing was being done by people off shore. The number of boats in that period of time increased from 32 to 140. The fish caught in the Klamath River fish that were caught here went from 1.2 million pounds of fish in 1915 down to 300,000 pounds in 1928. And this is why the fishery biologist from Stanford University concluded that the problem was critical and alarming and that it was due to over fishing, as simple as that. That was 50 years ago. Now, why haven't the State of California and the United States Department of the Interior done something about trying to rectify the situation before now.

MV:

FA:

MV:

FA:

MV:

MV:

All of a sudden somebody hits the panic button and they turn off the fishery against Indians. Yet, they allow the white fishermen to go off shore and catch all the salmon they want, and call you villians for netting fish in the river.

No. They call us renegades.

Well to me it is grossly unfair and something I think we can generate enough interest to ....

This Crescent City paper one time they referred to Indians catching fish in a net as an atrocity. Their people do the same thing at sea. What's the difference? In that same paper though

in that same paper at sometime later they came out with a special issue. It was a kinda

of a

I can't find the word it's a tribute to the commercial fishing industry. They have a whole issue on it.on the celebrated commercial fisherman out there and their big deal up there in Crescent City Harbor, their big fish processing plant, their big boats the whole thing, and how many millions of dollars the fishing industry is worth to the community. But the Indian, he was committing an atrocity.

But he's been blamed for the depletion of the fishery.

unintelligble

Right. They used to have five or six canneries right here. Another thing too they have us pegged as renegades, that the people who fish all the time. They call us renegades, but it's the people who don't live on the reservation. It's the people who don't live on the reservation that don't call us hard working family men. They don't participate in the fishing because they have other jobs and we don't have no jobs. We depend on our fishing to live here. We want to live here on these reservations not downtown in Eureka or San Diego or some other place. We belong here. So that people who

live here can fish here, they call us renegades. We love to fish.

MV:

But they don't say anything about the guy that does the same fishing off shore.

WV:

WV:

FA:

WV:

And we haven't got the money to do it with. We haven't got together and
stood behind each other unintelligble)

If we all decided on one separate thing last year when we decided about when

we wanted to fish and when you told them that we were going to commercial

fish

that didn't we all stick behind that then they let us commercial fish for a while but now some of them don't want to and some just don't say it and then other one's aren't coming forth. Then there's just a few left saying what they want to do and now it looks like we don't want to do it, because there looks like there's a disagreement amonst the fishermen.

Tell me.

Were you people asked to participate in the Pacific Coast Salmon
Conference that was held in Eureka, March, I believe?

We went to it but we were asked to participate but we gave testimony there
on wildlife. Walt gave a presentation there and I gave a presentation but not
as a member of the organization. I gave as myself and Walt gave one for the or-
ganization and then Paul Santiwell gave one from the Class Legal Defense Organ-
ization.

FA: Did you have any fishery biologist participate or make any statements on your behalf?

WV: No, Gary Rankle the Fish and Wildlife, he was there and he didn't get up there and say anything and I asked him how come he talks at every one of our other meetings. Why in the hell didn't he get up there where it meant the most to get up there and give a presentation about what he was studying because his study had come out about that 4% (salmon) the Indians were taking, 8% (salmon) the the tourists were taking and 88% for off shore and he said well he couldn't give it because he didn't get his authority from his friend to get it together

MV:

FA:

there at that meeting because he wasn't the head guy because he'd have to have his head boss' authority and I told him he came to every one of our meetings and you get up there and want to say something. Why didn't you say something in our defense, there where it meant something and he didn't say anything.

All we wanted him to give was the truth and public information but he wouldn't do that. He'll come here and spout off to us why we shouldn't fish and get out all these statistics.

Does the Fish and Wildlife Service make any reference to their relationship with

the Bureau of Marine Fishery of the Department of Commerce?

MV:

Yes, he has mentioned that they cannot in other words the Department of
Commerce uh, in other words, if we were to get our proper

WV:

MV:

MV:

MVB

Federal jurisdiction?

Right. In other words what we've mentioned to him time and time again that
being that this is a reservation and traditionally the people were fishermen
here, and his reply was that the Fish and Wildlife Service, or the Bureau of
Indian Affairs cannot make them give us our share of the fish and so for this
reason they only have jurisdictation on us. So with our measly 4%, they're going
to make us cut down to less than 4% while they continue to take 80-90% outside.
It's not equitable, that's all.

(Garbled conversation regarding 200 mile off shore foreign fishing limits.)

A lot of people get permits to come within 12 miles of these coasts. Hell,
at night they come in even closer.

Last summer there were three Polish vessels outside the mouth within 3 miles.
They put a net out probably 2-3 miles long and some of our people went up and
they called the Coast Guard. Two hours later the Coast Guard came up here.
Now those boats were sitting out there in about 6 fathoms of water
when that is clogged with salmon out there in 6 fathoms of water.
those nets and scooped those salmon up like you wouldn't believe, and they were

prime time And they put

FA:

MV:

gone in probably 1 hours and that's all the time it took. I'd like to have

a net out there 2 miles long for about 1 hours.

But you had to call the attention of the Coast Guard to the fact that they were
there?

Right. They weren't patroling. No. And when the Coast Guard finally showed
up, the Polish vessels were long gone and the Coast Guard came around here and
they looked around for a little bit but they didn't know where they were going
and didn't know who they were looking for and they couldn't find anything so they
went on back.

MV: (Garbled conversation about protecting vessels of the United States.)

MV: But now under the law, these Polish vessels when they get confronted with

FA:

those salmon, well they can say they just caught those salmon incidentally
with the bottom fish. Maybe they had a couple of tubs of bottom fish there.
But this is what we were really fishing for. We're just fishing for the bottom
fish and all those salmon we just caught incidentally.

So they caught more - they caught their share of the 88%.

MV: Gee, didn't you know Russian had canneries out there, floating around out here. By the next day the salmon will all be canned or processed or whatever and on their way back to port.

FA:

WV:

Tell me,

did the Coast Guard make any representations at the meeting of the
'Pacific Coast Salmon Fishery Conference?

I can't remember now. I have a book that shows all the people that testified.
I can give you that. Yea, it tells all the people and who they were affiliated
with. It doesn't give the testimony, but I met with one of the guys afterwards.
He met with us. He was on the Council. I forgot his name though. He came in
and he talked with us, because he didn't think Weller did to well of a
job for us. This guy was one of the council members that was listening to
the presentation, he just laughed and made jokes out of it. I don't know the
Coast Guard. I think I seen a Coast Guard name but I don't remember. (End of