with the State, even if it meant the resource would be damaged. The BIA refused to protect the resource with a moratorium until Huey Johnson "capitulated" to the BIA's demand for a simultaneous moratorium on all sport fishing during the last week of August. Weir went on to state that the linkage the BIA has attempted to establish between sport fishing and commercial fishing is not reasonable because of the small number of fish taken by sportsmen. If a commercial moratorium is advisable from a biological point of view, it should be imposed, without regard to forcing the state government to abandon its legal position. The Klamath/Trinity River Coalition, working with the resort owners and the director of the California Department of Fish and Game, Charlie Fullerton, felt that a reduction of the king salmon sport limit from three fish per day to one per day would reduce the sport-take to where it has an insignificant effect on the resource, yet not put the resorts and others who obtain their livelihoods from the sport fishery into bankruptcy. The BIA would not listen to Charlie Fullerton, to the coalition, or to the Indians who supported this view. On the night of August 30, 1978, what amounted to a miniature naval battle was fought on the estuary of the Klamath River. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service agents were painted as villains for having attacked women and children. The situation and the confrontations became more confused, to the point that enforcement against the real villains, the large commercial gill-net operators, was nonexistent. On September 9 the Del Norte Triplicate reported that the county sheriff, working on a drug case, had stopped a rental truck from San Diego that contained 650 salmon and one steelhead. The fish weighed 3% tons and were worth at least $28,000 once they got from the Klamath to San Diego. Enforcement was now gener ally limited by federal agents to daylight hours and could not be effective. By October, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service agents were gone from the river, leaving only two trainees. By the end of the year, even the trainees had disappeared. The illegal gill-netting and commercial sale of king salmon were not stopped on the Klamath River. Only the sportsmen were kept off the river after the moratoriurn was established. Secretary of the Interior Cecil Andrus flew from Washington to the river and wound up in a scuffle with Raymond Mattz, a well-known large-scaled gill-netter. You might remember Mattz from the Mattz vs Arnett case and from his recent arrest with gill nets and four salmon weighing over 200 pounds on the Smith River. The king salmon resource of the Klamath River is going to hell in a hand basket. Where is all that support from the BIA or the $1.7-million study and rehabilitation program proposed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Where is federal support for adequate baseline studies to tell us what the resource really is? The California DF&G, even with one arm and one leg tied behind its back by Covernor Brown's severe and unreasonable budget cuts, has started a minimum sampling of the runs and has developed some data. It's shocking. Mid-January DF&G data for the 1978 to 1979 chinook run estimated the following: illegal Indian commercial sales, 10,000 fish; Indian subsistence take, 15,000 fish; sport angler take, 1,700 fish; spawning escapement, 87,000 fish. This amounted to a 113,700-fish total. We believe that the actual sportsmen take was less than 1,000 fish. We know that a large number of the fish listed as being taken for subsistence were actually sold commercially. We also know that with almost no enforcement against the large Indian gill-net operators, the illegal commercial take could easily have been 30,000 or 40,000 fish. If such was the case, then less than 70,000 chinook made it to their spawning grounds. Compared with the 115,000 that the DF&G and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service feel are the minimum number of spawning fish needed to perpetuate the run we are really in a disaster situation. The Klamath Trinity River Coalition, working with the Indians, guides, resort owners, and others that live on and fish the river, gets continual input from those that are on the firing line. Many of these people have seen the trucks and the nets. They advise that there are a very limited number of roads down to the river that the gill-netters use and that their hours of operation are also well defined. Proper enforcement can get these trucks, and it doesn't require chasing people in boats during the day. That's even the wrong time of day. We are working with the responsible segments of the Indian leadership. All of these groups oppose the commercial ravage of the fishery and are willing to accept a commercial moratorium until the resource can be properly defined and regulated. It's just a handful of less than 20 large operators that are doing the damage, and it's up to the federal government to put a stop to it in a proper manner. The illegal commercial gill-net operators have been sanctioned and supported by the BIA. The BIA has prevented the resolution of the Jessie Short Case and done every thing possible to prevent the legitimate and responsible tribal leaders from getting the justice that the courts gave them in 1973 and 1974, when the decisions were handed down in this case. The Klamath/Trinity River Coalition believes that if we can get justice for these Indians and break the death grip that the BIA holds around their necks, we can also save the salmon and steelhead for all of us. We believe this is the only ap proach. On December 20, 1978, Del Norte County Sheriff Tom Hopper reported a dozen gill-netters on the Lower Klamath at work on late run salmon and steelhead. One was observed tending between 15 and 20 nets. On January 2, 1979, 60 nets were reported between the Glenn and Stawwein Flat. Federal regulations have superseded state law, and there are no federal agents on the river to enforce anything. Whenever the river drops, the nets go back into the river. Based on this kind of action, we are really concerned that a much smaller number than 70,000 salmon ever spawned-and how about the steelhead now being worked over? We have reports that over 3 tons of steelhead were sold by one operation in December and January alone. Congressman Pete McCloskey and the entire California delegation have been supporting our cause, and finally we have the attention of the Secretary of the Interior and the BIA. The BIA still wants to control the fishery and that $19 million due to the Yurok plaintiffs in the Jessie Short Case. It's all tied together, and we are keeping the pressure on until we can get equity on both counts. The Klamath/Trinity River Coalition has developed a number of action items that have been read into the record of one of the recent congressional oversight hearings on the Kiamath. We also agree with the State of California and the Del Norte district attorney's position that the federal government must provide a complete en vironmental impact statement prior to the issuance of any fishing regulations. The BIA has continued to support people that do large-scaled commercial gill-netting and has been attempting to get these people to form tribal councils for the Yuroks to control both the millions of dollars in trust and the fishing rights and regulations. We have been assured that Congress will not allow the BIA to continue its nefarious activities, that the Yuroks will get justice, and that we will save the fishery. After 29 years of abuse, I think you can understand some skepticism on the part of the Yuroks. We can't help but agree. However, we would like to be proven wrong. The coalition is proud of its accomplishments in being able to smoke out the villains and obtain sincere congressiona! support for the real issues. We are most ap preciative of Congressman Pete McCloskey for the effort he has devoted to this issue and for his leadership in meetings with the BIA, Congress, the Department of In terior, and many others to get this problem off dead center. We hope you appreciate his hard work as well. The battie is far from over. We still have a long way to go, but things are happening for the first time since 1950. Not only that, but the experience we have gained in the past several years should allow us a better chance of saving the Smith River from these same people. The Klamath/Trinity River Coalition still needs your support and your contributions You can reach them at P.O. Box 2393, Sunnyvale, CA 94087. Angler/Marty Seldon FEDERATION OF FLY FISHERMEN, Hon. JOHN B. BREAUX, Chairman, Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation and the Environment, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN BREAUX: First, I wish to congratulate you on succeeding to the chairmanship of the above-mentioned committee. In past communication over the years with your immediate two predecessors I came to understand the great importance of its legislative role to proper regulation of the tremendously valuable natural resources subject to its oversight. I hope it will continue the high quality of oversight which has heretofore prevailed under your predecessors. Next, I petition the best effort of your committee to support the position of the Klamath/Trinity River Coalition, Inc. as regards the grave social/resource crises problem of which the central issue is inadequate administration of the anadromous fisheries in those northern California rivers. You are undoubtedly already aware of the Coalition's position on the issue inclusive of its proposal of a "Negotiating Platform" toward a permanent solution and, within it, a viable alternative to commercial gill-netting based on appropriate Federal Government action. Basically, I represented the International Federation of Fly Fisherman at the Klamath/Trinity River coalition founding in San Francisco several years ago and as its prime communicant until terminating as its conservation chairman last fall (see attached copy of The Woodland-Davis Daily Democrat 10/28/78 article). As you will note therein, I have continued serving the Federation as one of its Senior Advisors. Beyond those considerations, I am seriously concerned as a lifelong resident of California who has been closely aware of its anadromous fisheries and problems relating thereto for the past six decades. The depth of the Federation's interest in this serious social/resource problem is evident in the numerous communications between myself and your immediate predecessor, Robert L. Leggett, during 1977 and 1978, which are part of your committee's file on it. I ask that you include this letter as well as the aforementioned past intercommunications as the substance of my present personal plea as part of the current hearing record in this matter. Copies of this letter have been mailed ot California Congressman Vic Fazio and U.S. Senators Alan Cranston and S. I. Hayakawa who are already aware of the Federation interest from my past communications with them. Each has expressed himself as being greatly sympathetic about the need for an equitable long lasting solution. I'm sure we're all unanimously agreed that there is urgent need for a proper solution. In that spirit of unanimity, I believe that all members of your Committee and both houses of congress should find the Klamath/Trinity River Coalition, Inc. proposals acceptable. I urge the best efforts of your committee to that end. Sincerely, RAY W. FISHER, Senior Advisor. Representative PAUL MCCLOSKEY, KING SALMON RESORT, Klamath, Calif., April 27, 1979. HON. SIR: Concerning the proposed congressional hearings regarding the Klamath area, I have a presentation I'd like to make. Please schedule a time for me and if you can, please let me know in advance the time and place I can be heard. Exhibit No. 1: A letter dated June 27, 1978 to me from the California State Lands Commission in which they say "the bed of the Klamath River is sovereign land." Exhibit No. 2: A letter dated September 28, 1978 to Rep. Don Clausen from me in which I ask "Is the bed of the Klamath River really sovereign land?" * * * Exhibit No. 3: A letter dated October 18, 1978 to me from Rep. Don Clausen in which he acknowledges that "I do not think it is clear to anyone ** what the legal status of the river is * I am asking the Dept. of the Interior to respond." Exhibit No. 4: A letter not dated and not signed on Department of the Interior letter-head in which the writer reports "The bed of the Klamath River ** is an unresolved legal issue which will someday need resolving." * * * In view of these exhibits I respectfully request that during this congressional year legislation be enacted that a meander line be struck down the center of the river and that the existing deeds of property owners on the several sides of the river be extended to this meander line. I thank you, Respectfully, EARL G. HENSEL. KING SALMON RESORT, Klamath, Calif., September 28, 1978. Hon. DON CLAUSEN, Redwood Empire Representative, Washington, D.C. DEAR SIR: Please review the inclosed letter (copy) which I received from the California State Lands Commission. With so many Federal werdens patrolling the lower Klamath River in our area, we cannot help but wonder is the bed of the Klamath River really sovereign land?” DEAR MR. HENSEL: I just wanted to acknowledge receipt of your recent letter regarding the status of ownership of the Lower Klamath River. The question which you have raised is certainly a very significant one in many of the problems which have surrounded the Klamath River in the past years. Unfortunately, I do not think it is clear to anyone at the Federal or State level, or from the court decisions, what the legal status of the rivers is. I am asking the Department of the Interior to respond, for the record, to your question and to also provide supporting information for their position. I will be back in touch with you as soon as I receive this report back from the Department of the Interior. Thank you again for contacting me, and please be assured that you have my continuing support for a moratorium of commercial fishing on the Klamath River. Sincerely, DON H. CLAUSEN. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, STATE LANDS COMMISSION, Sacramento, Calif., June 27, 1978. EARL C. and CAROL R. HENSEL, King Salmon Resort Klamath, Calif. DEAR MR. HENSEL: The State Lands Commission's staff has information which indicates that your are the owner of APN No.140-110-02 from which certain boating facilities project onto the bed of the Klamath River, Del Norte County. This will advise you that the bed of the Klamath River is sovereign land of the State of California and is therefore under the jurisdiction of the State Lands Commission. Pursuant to the authority of applicable sections of the California Public Resources Code, the placing of structures in or on the bed of such sovereign lands may not be made without having first received authorization of the State Lands Commission to do so. It will therefore be necessary for you to obtain a lease or permit from the State Land Commission for your exclusive use of said sovereign lands should you desire to continue the existence of such facilities. Enclosed is information relative to the application requirements of the State Lands Commission. Kindly complete the enclosed application and return it to this office along with the required $25 non-refundable filing fee. If you should require additional information or assistance please contact me at (916) 322-7809. Your cooperation in complying with this request and your early response would be appreciated. Very truly yours, Hon. DON CLAUSEN, Member, United States House of Representatives DEAR MR. CLAUSEN: Thank your for your communication of October 16, on behalf of Mr. Earl G. Hensel of Klamath, California. dba King Salmon Resort, regarding ownership of the bed of the Klamath River. As you know, the Klamath River and the Hoopa Indian Reservation have been sources of many political and legal issues that have yet to be resolved. The bed of the Klamath River is one of the issues. Undoubtedly at some time in the future the ownership of the bed of the Klamath River will be a matter that will have to be resolved, probably by litigation. We appreciate very much your concern with this unresolved issue, and wish to assure you that we are aware of it. As you can understand, our resources and attention in the recent past have been compelled to be focused on those issues which pose threats to the valuable resources themselves, or to the public welfare. If we can be of further assistance, please let us know. Sincerely, FORREST GERARD, Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs. THE CALIFORNIA FISHERIES RESTORATION FOUNDATION, Subcommittee of Fish and Wildlife Conservation: MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE: The ranks of the California Fisheries Restoration Foundation are made up of conservationists and sports anglers. We recognize that a serious problem exists on the Klamath River and its main tributary, the Trinity River, that urgently needs a solution. The Klamath River is one of a small handful of rivers in California that host major runs of salmon and steelhead. To allow a commercial fishery to harvest these spawning runs by use of modern equipment and techniques would be to seriously endanger the existence of this fishery, if not completely eradicate it in a period of four years. This threat to the fishery did not exist until the Bureau of Indian Affairs altered existing federal regulations concerning the Klamath River granting an ambiguous right to certain citizens with Indian ancestory to commercially gill net in the Klamath. The CFRF wants to express its grave concern over the preservation of the fishery resource of the Klamath-Trinity River system. All citizens in the United States have labored hard in the last decade to create an important awareness of the need to preserve our great fish and wildlife resources. To lose the runs of salmon and steelhead on this river would be a terrible step backward. This resource will be lost to present and future generations of Americans, whether they be of Indian ancestory or not. With this realization, CFRF urges that congressional attention be focused on the following issues: Moratorium.-The present ban on commercial fishing is a temporary stop-gap. Without proper enforcement techniques and personnel, it is not effective. A definition of "subsistence" fishing is badly needed. Without such a definition, enforcement of, or any attempted regulation concerning moratorium, is uncertain. Assessment of the resource.-At the present time the nature and extent of the fishery resource on this river is largely unknown. It should be the subject of a comprehensive study having as its goal, the development of facts upon which an enlightened management plan can be developed. It is CFRF's contention that the introduction of regulations allowing a commercial fishery on the Klamath is an act which significantly affects the environment, yet no National Environmental Policy Act analysis nor environmental impact statement accompanied those regulations. This again shows a lack of and a need for knowledge of the resource. Enlightened management regulations.-Along with the fishery problem is a social problem which is intertwined. The B.I.A. must take steps to solve the controversies that exist among the area Indians. Representation from a Common Reservation Council would be a key factor in bringing about a successful resource management plan. All federal and state agencies with jurisdiction should join together in committee or district to work out regulations for the entire Klamath River basin area. A format for adequate representation of area residents, the Indian community, the ocean fishery, sports anglers and others must be provided. The Trinity River tributary to the Klamath is in dire need of rehabilitation and habitat improvement. Definite positive action plans should be developed to restore this once great fishery resource. Respectfully submitted, DAVID B. DRAHEIM, Vice President. JUNE 13, 1979. Hon. JOHN BREAUX, Chairman, Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation and the Environment, Washington, D.C. HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE: I am Harold Del Ponte, a life long resident of Klamath, California and have been active in all phases of community service. I served 20 years on the County Board of Supervisors and am Past President of both the Klamath and Del Norte County Chambers of Commerce, to cite a couple of examples. I attended the May 26, 1979 hearings in Eureka and am convinced that turning the salmon resource over to tribal management would be disasterous to both the fish and economic well being of Del Norte County. Congress created a Redwood National Park which severely crippled our lumber industry. Now Congress must act to preserve our tourist industry which was supposed to take its place. I believe the best action would be to abolish the remains of the reservation on the lower 20 miles of the Klamath River. This was the condition that prevailed from 1892 until the Supreme Court decision of 1975. As a result of Chapter 120 of the 52nd Congress enacted June 17, 1892, 99% of the land in the one mile strip in Del Norte County and the Humboldt County area is probably very similar, is in private ownership and on the County tax rolls. Less than 100 acres out of approximately 12,000 have the titles held in government trust as part of the Hoopa Valley reserva tion. Some land along the lower river was homesteaded under the provisions of Chapter 120 and of the original Indian allotments, most took fee title and still own the land or subsequently sold it. To term an area with this proportion of private land a reservation and grant Indian residents immunity from local and state laws, after all these years, is unfair to those of us who, for three generations have devoted our lives to develop the lower Klamath country. When it was considered a non-reservation, the California Department of Fish and Game did an adequate job of protecting the resource, the Indian population survived and thrived without commercial fishing and there was absolutely no racial feelings as have existed since the 1975 decision. Such feelings, which I deplore as a native of the area, will exist wherever one class of people is granted privileges not granted all American citizens. If it is not politically possible to abolish the reservation on the lower 20 miles, I would request you consider legislation that would declare land homesteaded under Chapter 120 to be forever removed from reservation status. This is necessary in order that state and county laws can be enforced against Indians living in subdivisions that were created on these former homesteads. Examples of laws and ordinances not now being enforced against Indians are building codes, zoning ordinances, dog control regulations, sanitary rules and sales tax collection. These are in addition to hunting and fishing regulations which make it impossible to prevent an Indian from shooting a deer in your front yard any time of year, or trespass across your property to reach the river, it has happened to me. I am sure this was not the intent when the 52nd Congress passed Chapter 120 and probably not the intent of the 1975 Supreme Court decision but that is the way it is being interpreted and as a result, confrontations are inevitable. Please do something to restore peace and tranquility to our area and protect our rights as citizens. The Supreme Court made it very clear that if Congress wanted to abolish the reservation it could, but because it didn't in so many words we now have the chaotic condition that prevails. Thank you for considering my views. HAROLD DEL PONTE. |