Hon. JOHN B. BREAUX, FRIENDS OF THE RIVER Sacramento, Calif., May 30, 1979. Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation and the Environment, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dear HonorabLE BREAUX: With great concern on the fishing privileges on the Klamath and Trinity Rivers, Friends of the River in Sacramento are supporting the Klamaths/Trinity River Coalitions "Negotiating Platform.” The Klamath Řiver is too small to support a commercial gill-net fishery. The fish in this river should remain an Indian fishing enterprise for the needy Indians who depend on salmon for a vital part of their food supply, not to be exploited by gill-net fishing by a handful depleating the salmon population detrementally. Lets protect the eco-system in these rivers so they can live on in their natural state, over abuse can certainly lead to a zero population of the salmon and effect the food chain in this area. Sincerely, NANCY L. DOUGHERTY. Hon. JOHN B. BREAUX, WORLD OF WHITEWATER Chairman, Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation and the Environment, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR SIR: We, at World of Whitewater, support the Klamath/Trinity River Coalition's position on the Klamath River Fishery. We think the Fishery is in definite danger and that steps must be taken to protect the salmon while there is still time. We do have float trips on both the Klamath and the Trinity Rivers, and would be happy to show you the river. Very truly yours, GLENNA H. GOODWIN. CORREIA, BACON & KASTER, Hon. JOHN B. BREAUX, Chairman, Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife, DEAR SIR: Riview of the regulations issued by the Bureau of Indian Affairs for the Klamath River effective April 1, 1979, again highlights the fact that this agency is totally unable to comprehend the problem created by the regulations which allow and will cause a total destruction of the fisheries resource on the Klamath River to the detriment not only of the general public, but also the Indians they are allegedly trying to protect. The regulations set forth no minimum mesh size and provide no assurance whatsoever of a sufficient escape of spawning fish to continue the fishery. The Bureau of Indian Affairs might as well have allowed the use of dynamite as an alternative means of fishing. Past experience has already shown, particularly in British Columbia, that gill netting will virtually wipe out the anadramous fishery on a river such as the Klamath River. There is no evidence whatsoever to indicate that the Indians entitled to use this fishery cannot obtain subsistence fishing without more conventional means of angling. The Bureaus of Indian Affairs regulations allowing the use of gill nets will simply continue the past practice of illicit commercial fishing. It would appear that the only solution is to totally remove this matter from the jurisdiction from the Bureau of Indian Affairs, as it is apparent they simply lack the professional experience to protect the Klamath River fisheries resource. Very truly yours, LARRY BACON. Hon. JOHN B. BREAUX, KLAMATH RIVER BASIN TASK FORCE, Chairman, Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Commission and Environment, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN BREAUX: Our organization, Klamath River Basin Task Force, is a non-profit corporation, formed for two purposes: (1) Protect and enhance the anadromous fish runs of salmon and steelhead, in the Klamath River. (2) Save from financial ruin the tourist oriented businesses, located in close proximity to the river, in the Klamath area. Our local membership, comprised largely of business owners and totalling approximately one hundred twenty-five persons, is supported by thousands of concerned conservationists and sports fishermen, throughout California and neighboring states. Due to the complex problems which have arisen, here, as a result of Bureau of Indian Affairs' regulations, regarding questionable "federally reserved" Indian fishing rights, on the Klamath, we are confronted with hostility between Indian groups of divergent opinions, as well as hostility between Indians and non-Indian residents and tourists, who formerly vacationed, here, in great numbers, during summer months, for enjoyment of our refreshing climate, magnificent redwood forests, ocean beaches and the pleasure of boating and fishing, on the Klamath River. As you may know, last summer's hostilities and eruptions of violence, on and near the river, caused great fear among hundreds of vacationers, who promptly departed the area, vowing not to return until law and order is restored, on the Klamath. The untimely departure of vacationers, last year, resulted in resort owners' suffering grave financial loss, which cannot be endured, again, this year. We are in urgent need of uniformity of law enforcement, in the Klamath area. Our local Indian population, judging from what we have been told and what we have observed, is above and beyond state and local law enforcement jurisdiction, while they are within the boundaries of the so-called "Extension", of the Hoopa Valley Indian Reservation. (The "Extension" is a mile wide strip, on either side of the Klamath River, starting at the "Hoopa Square" and extending 20 miles downstream, to the mouth of the Klamath River.) As to gillnetting, within the river, and contrary to information which may have reached you from other sources, our organization is opposed to all gillnetting, whether commercial, subsistance or for ceremonial purposes-the latter being a total farce, as is locally well known. If there is a genuine need for large numbers of salmon and steelhead, for individual Indian families' food supply, our opinion is that government operated fish traps be employed, with the catch being apportioned, among the various families. Trapping would avoid waste of fish which rot in ill-tended gillnets, or die because of knife-like, nylon cord wounds, if they escape the nets. Proper distribution of trapped fish should also preclude their sale. Presently, Bureau of Indian Affairs' regulation allows Indian subsistance and ceremonial fishing, by gillnets, seven days per week, twenty-four hours per day, excepting for one day, when the nets must be removed from the river, for a four hour period. The matter of permitting gillnets to be in the river, during almost total daylight hours, when the river is clear, as it is in summer months, is in the nature of governmentally sanctioned harassment, since the fish are readily able to see and avoid the nets, while the empty nets remain, as a hazard to propellers and fishing lines and hampering boat passage, in general, through the narrow river. We fear that perilous confrontations will occur, between netters and non-netters. In the search for solution to intolerable problems, we have contemplated the possibility of congressional termination of the reservation status of the "Extension" if, indeed, it does have reservation status. If termination is impossible, the solution may be through buying out all non-Indian ownerships and creating, of the "extension", a genuine reservation, combined with the "Hoopa Square". However, in our opinion, the best solution to this intolerable situation is that of returning management, of the Klamath River fishery, to the State of California, through congressional action. Prior to local intervention, by Bureau of Indian Affairs, we people of Klamath, Indian and non-Indian, enjoyed a harmonious relationship in all phases of our lives. Now, we are experiencing unpleasant racial segregation, leading to loss of communication and consequent mistrust and disharmony. It is our earnest hope that your committee can resolve these problems and, thus, enable us to become a reunited community, Americans, all, and proud to be just that. Sincerely, LUTHER HINDS, President. FISHING SYSTEMS, Hon. JOHN B. BREAUX, Menlo Park, Calif., May 18, 1979. Chairman, Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation and the Enviornment, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN BREAUX: I wish to go on record of being strongly opposed to the latest Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) action of bestowing special commercial gill-net fishing privileges to the "Hoopa Valley Indian Reservation" which is located on the Klamath-Trinity rivers in California. If this latest decision by the BIA is allowed to stand it will eliminate the anadromous fisheries-salmon and steelhead-in the Klamath-Trinity rivers in a very short period of time. The Department of Commerce aided by NOAA, the National Marine Fisheries Service, the Fishing Management Councils, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and the Western States Fish and Game or Wildlife Departments, is mandated and all are striving to implement Public Law 94-265, "The Fishery Conservation and Management Act". This act is aimed at preserving, conserving and enhancing all U.S. fisheries, which includes the salmon, steelhead and sturgeon fisheries of the Klamath-Trinity rivers. It is completely incongruous and beyond sensible comprehension to allow the BIA, which has no capabilities or competence in fisheries, to become involved and render decisions which can result in the complete destruction of the valuable fishery resources on this specific river system. Millions of taxpayer dollars are being spent by Federal Government agencies who have staffs knowledgeable and technically competent in fisheries matters, to improve all U.S. fisheries. In addition, State Governments with staffs of highly competent fisheries people are spending tax and fishing license fee dollars to conserve and enhance our fisheries. The State of California for many years has spent considerable amounts of money to preserve and improve the runs of salmon and steelhead stocks in the Klamath-Trinity rivers. I believe it is incumbent upon all legislators, in both the Federal and State governments, to protect in every way possible the taxpayer's investment in the effort to improve U.S. fisheries. It would be derelict to allow any entity or organization and in this instance the BIA, to undo the efforts and results thus far achieved by the many conscientious and competent people in government and private organizations, by permitting the consequences of a very poor decision and the resulting action to completely destroy any fishery in any river. I wish to make it clear that I am in favor of allowing native American subsistence fishing on their reservations; however, not through the use of gill-nets. The majority of the reservation natives in this case are totally against the use of gill-nets anywhere on this river system. Gill-net fishing should be prohibited on all streams and rivers in the West with the possible exception of the lower reaches of the Columbia River below Bonneville Dam. Even on the Columbia there is some concern that gill-netting is detrimental with respect to maintaining adequate Columbia River salmon and steelhead stocks. All other western rivers should be closed to gill-netting since they are too small to withstand the pressure from this type of fishing. Salmon and steelhead stocks would be rapidly depleted if gill-netting is allowed. I strongly urge you, your subcommittee and all other responsible parties to take rapid, positive action to countermand and rescind the BIA's decision to permit special commercial gill-net fishing privileges for the "Hoopa Valley Indian Reservation". I also urge you and other appropriate legislators and government officials to consider elimination of the now obsolete BIA organization so that it cannot create major problems in the future and cause further wastage of the taxpayers dollars. Sincerely yours, JOHN A. EIKELMAN, Jr. Hon. JOHN B. BREAUX, A. G. HOLTER & CO., Greenbrae, Calif., May 17, 1979. Chairman, Fishing and Wildlife Conservation and the Environment Subcommittee, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The immediate problem on the Klamath River is how best to save, conserve, and restore the salmon fishery. The moratorium on commercial fishing in the river is a short but decisive step in the right direction toward saving the fishery. The question is how to make the moratorium effective. To be effective, the moratorium must be consistently enforceable. In my opinion, consistent and credible enforcement of the commercial moratorium requires that consideration be given to a subsistence possession limit, whereby any qualified Indian fisherman apprehended with salmon in possession over and above this subsistence limit would be deemed to be fishing commercially. Such a possession provision would greatly simplify the enforcement procedures. It is my understanding that presently an actual sale of fish must take place before an arrest can be made. Quite obviously, those who are intent upon selling salmon netted in the Klamath River are not making such sales on the banks of the river in broad daylight! And what are the realistic probabilities of preventing or witnessing a sale anywhere else? An analogy might be made to various state drug laws, whereby possession of a specified amount of, say, marijuana is essentially okay and anything in excess in possession is deemed to be for sale. I would think that the appropriate governmental agency, in conjunction with the Yurok and Hupa community, could come up with an acceptable subsistence possession limit. Such a possession limit should be high enough to allow not only for immediate fish consumption by the fisherman and his family, but also provide enough fish for smoking, canning, and freezing, these fish to provide additional food when the salmon runs are over. I just wanted to personally touch on this one point for your consideration. In addition, there have been many of us working together in the form of the Klamath/ Trinity River Coalition toward the conservation and restoration of the salmon and steelhead fishery and I hope you and your committee members will give your utmost consideration to the Coalition's oral and written testimony. Thank you. Yours very truly, ANTON G. HOLTER. COMMENTS ON KLAMATH RIVER INDIAN FISHING REGULATIONS ASSISTANT SECRETARY, INDIAN Affairs, Washington, D.C. MARCH 15, 1979. DEAR SIR: Although I am not an Indian of the Hoopa Valley Reservation nor an Eligible Fisher, I am an economist who has spent the better part of the last two years working with local Indian organizations. I therefore feel qualified to comment on the proposed regulations governing the Indian fishery on the Klamath and Trinity Rivers. As a general comment, I feel that there is little, if anything, in the regulations to benefit the Indians of the Reservation, particulary when viewed from a historical perspective. The proposed regulations allow for fishing only for consumptive (subsistence) and ceremonial purposes. To the best of my knowledge, the Indians have always had these rights and their legality has never been challenged. Under the regulations as written, however, Indians are allowed to exercise these rights only if they are properly licensed and registered by the BIA. The fisher's Identification process as outlined in Section 258.6 is overly bureaucratic and seems to infringe on individual rights to privacy. This provision adds no weight to the primary restriction imposed by the regulations-the closure of the commercial fishery. If an Indian is intent on fishing for commercial purposes, it seems likely that he/she would want to avoid the identification process. If an Indian wants to exercise his/her traditional right to fish for consumption, why place artificial barriers on this activity? Many Indians, particularly elders, are wary of bureaucracies and are loathe to have their pictures taken. By failing to comply with these registration procedures, an Indian is subject to penalties (Sec. 258.15g) even when fishing for subsistence. This has never been a crime. Enforcement of this provision will increase arrest rates, increase hostilities on the river, but will have only negligible impact on the conservation of the resource. With regard to the issue of commercial fishing, I personally believe that limited commercial fishing could be allowed without damaging the resource, and I have discussed the potential of these prospects with representatives of various Indian organizations throughout the watershed. Unfortunately, opinions on the commercial fishing issue are radically polarized within the different Indian communities. In the absence of Yurok tribal government it appears impossible to reach any consensus on the management of the commercial Indian fishery at this time. If I was forced to choose between unregulated commercial fishing and the closure of the commercial fishery, I would support the latter as I believe it is the consensus of the majority of Indian people. As an economist however, I recognize the economic potential of commercial salmon fishing and would like to offer the following recommendations as interim measures that might represent the first step in the development of the commercial fishery in the absence of an overall tribal government. 1. Organizations or groups of 25 or more Indians be allowed to submit commercial harvest plans. These plans would be evaluated by a panel of representatives from regulatory agencies, economists, and biologists. Based on this evaluation, each group would be assigned a quota for commercial harvest. (In this situation, some registration process may be required to identify the members of each organization.) 2. Centralized buying points be established on the river to purchase commercial harvest. Buying would be administered by BIA or local non-profit Indian organizations. These buyers would be the only authorized purchasers of fresh Klamath River Salmon. 3. The buyers could then sell the salmon to members of the community or tourists. In this context, smoked salmon would seem to have the greatest economic potential. It has a high price per pound and provides increased jobs in the community. It could be sold for the maximum price in the San Francisco area. 4. The profits from these activities could be used to finance a salmon enhancement program. Such a program would offer many benefits including the following: reducing the pressure against the government by allowing limited commercial fishing; providing for more accurate controls on the quantity of the commercial harvest, raising the consciousness of Indian people as to the potential of commercial fishing, bringing money and jobs into the community, generating revenues to finance an enhancement program. Such a program could be instituted in the absence of a tribal government; it could serve until such time as a comprehensive reservation management program is developed. It should be noted, however, that as of this time a majority of Indian people have favored the no commercial fishing option (as reported by survey administered by Ad Hoc Fishing Committee in February, 1979). Therefore, no program such as I have proposed should be attempted without first gaining a consensus of public support. As another general comment on the published regulations, I would argue that the language is overly broad and imprecise, with the exception of certain sections on enforcement, registration, etc. Again this choice of language works to the detriment of the Indian people an leaves several important questions unanswered. In particular, I believe the following issues should be addressed in the final publication of these regulations: 1. Supplemental Information-page 1-last sentence. Mention is made of a "consensus of Hoopas and Yuroks" .. being given "great weight". How is such a consensus to be measured? What is meant by "great weight?" Will a consensus arrived at by a majority of Indians of the Reservation at a later date still be given "great weight" once the regulations are published? 2. Supplemental Information-page 3-last paragraph. "This regulation is interim only." These regulations only state the proposed date they will go into effect. There is no date set for when they will go out of effect. How long will these regulations remain in effect before they are re-opened for official public comment? What is meant by: "a reservation-wide management plan (is expected) in the 'very-near future'?" Why not set a date based on this expectation? 3. What provisions are made for relaxing restrictions on the commercial fishery should biological data indicate the resource could support such an activity? 4. What weight, if any, will be given to public comments received during consultaton sessions, as outlined in Section 258.10? 5. Section 258.12-Who are these "Indian Trainees?" How are they chosen? What are their duties? What training will they receive? Although the language in the sections on enforcement is precise, I believe it is overly restrictive and potentially hazardous. I would argue that prime consideration |