U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

93–499 PDF 2004

S. HRG. 108–563

NATIVE AMERICAN FISH AND WILDLIFE

RESOURCES MANAGEMENT ACT

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

ON

S. 2301

TO IMPROVE THE MANAGEMENT OF INDIAN FISH AND WILDLIFE AND

GATHERING RESOURCES

APRIL 29, 2004

WASHINGTON, DC

(
COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS

BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado, Chairman

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Vice Chairman

JOHN McCAIN, Arizona,

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma

GORDON SMITH, Oregon

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska

KENT CONRAD, North Dakota

HARRY REID, Nevada

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington

PAUL MOOREHEAD, Majority Staff Director/Chief Counsel

PATRICIA M. ZELL, Minority Staff Director/Chief Counsel

(II)
(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

S. 2301, text of ......................................................................................................... 3

Statements:

Carlson, Ervin, president, Inter-Tribal Bison Cooperative ........................... 88

Dubray, Fred, Inter-Tribal Bison Cooperative, Rapid City, SD ................... 88

Frank, Jr., Billy, chairman, Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission ........ 65

Inouye, Hon. Daniel K., U.S. Senator from Hawaii, vice chairman, Committee on Indian Affairs ............................................................................... 1

Jackson, Gordon, director, Business and Sustainable Development, Central Council Tlingit and Haida Tribes of Alaska ........................................ 85

Mayo, Randy, first chief, Stevens Village, AK ............................................... 82

Myers, Sonny, executive director, 1854 Authority ......................................... 73

New Breast, Ira, executive director, Native American Fish and Wildlife

Society ............................................................................................................ 78

Patt, Jr., Olney, chairman, Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission ................................................................................................................. 67

Smith, Hon. Gordon, U.S. Senator from Oregon ............................................ 71

Schwalenberg, Dewey, natural resource/environmental program director,

Stevens Village, AK ...................................................................................... 82

Zorn, James, attorney-policy analyst, Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission ............................................................................................. 75

APPENDIX

Prepared statements:

Carlson, Ervin ................................................................................................... 95

Frank, Jr., Billy ................................................................................................ 103

Jackson, Gordon ............................................................................................... 108

Mayo, Randy ..................................................................................................... 98

Myers, Sonny .................................................................................................... 113

New Breast, Ira ................................................................................................ 98

Patt, Jr., Olney ................................................................................................. 100

Smith, Hon. Gordon, U.S. Senator from Oregon ............................................ 95

Schwalenberg, Dewey (with attachment) ....................................................... 118

Zorn, James ....................................................................................................... 142

(1)

NATIVE AMERICAN FISH AND WILDLIFE

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACT

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 29, 2004

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS, Washington, DC.

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in room 485,

Senate Russell Building, Hon. Daniel K. Inouye (vice chairman of

the committee) presiding.

Present: Senators Inouye and Smith.

STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. INOUYE, U.S. SENATOR FROM

HAWAII, VICE CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS

Senator INOUYE. The Senate Committee on Indian Affairs meets

this morning to receive testimony on S. 2301, a discussion draft bill

that was introduced on April 7, 2004 to provide for support for the

activities of tribal governments in managing fish and wildlife and

gathering resources.

The Native American Fish and Wildlife Resources Management

Act of 2004 was developed by Indian tribes and the tribal organizations they charter to provide for the prudent management of fish

and wildlife resources, as well as by Alaska Native governments

and organizations. The act builds upon the foundation of earlier

measures, some of which have been enacted into law, which are designed to more specifically address the nature of the United States’

trust responsibilities as they relate to the natural resources that

are held in trust.

Tribal governments are the principal stewards of the natural resources of tribal lands. For thousands of years before European

contact, tribes also served as the responsible stewards of the natural resources on millions of acres of land that were under their dominion and control. There were no shortages of resources in earlier

times because the tribes regulated fishing and hunting and gathering in a manner that would assure the protection and conservation

of our precious natural resources.

They harvested only what was necessary for their subsistence

and for those with whom they traded. But then came the massive

influx of those who came to settle in America. With their westward

expansion came the clear-cutting of forests, the resulting erosion of

land, and the introduction of chemicals to foster the growth of agricultural crops that began to affect the quality of water in the

streams and rivers and even the ocean, and later the construction

of dams to provide electricity.
2

All of these developments have had a devastating impact on the

fish and wildlife and the habitat that is their home and which Indian tribes and other concerned citizens seek to preserve and protect. We have been for many years now at a critical juncture in

maintaining the health and the very survival of wild species. The

list of species that are threatened or endangered continues to grow

and tough economic decisions have to be made.

For instance, today on the front page of the Washington Post we

read about a new rule being proposed by the National Marine Fisheries Service which announces that the Administration will now

count hatchery-bred fish when it decides whether stream-bred wild

salmon are entitled to protection under the Endangered Species

Act.

The bill that is the subject of the testimony we will receive today

was largely drafted in Indian country by those who have expertise

in the management of fish and wildlife resources. It is a work in

progress, but I think it is important to note that this bill is not intended to, nor will it affect either an expansion or diminishment

of tribal rights. What it is designed to do is provide support for

what tribal governments are doing every day with increasingly limited resources to protect fish and wildlife, not only for the domestic

consumption and subsistence uses of its citizens, but protecting

these precious resources for all of our Nation’s citizens.

In many areas of the country, tribal governments are working

with Federal agencies and State governments to develop and implement management schemes that will preserve fish and wildlife resources and foster the healthy growth of fish and wildlife populations. Each government has the responsibility of managing fish

and wildlife resources within their respective jurisdictions, but

working together Federal agencies and State and tribal governments are far better equipped to provide protections for fish and

wildlife that do not honor jurisdictional boundaries, as for instance

when the various species of salmon return from the ocean to their

streams of origin to spawn.

So we must all work together, and tribal governments must have

the resources to carry on their traditions of responsible stewardship.

[Text of S. 2301 follows:]
3

1

II

108TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2301

To improve the management of Indian fish and wildlife and gathering

resources, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

APRIL 7, 2004

Mr. INOUYE introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Indian Affairs

A BILL

To improve the management of Indian fish and wildlife and

gathering resources, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

4 (a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the

5 ‘‘Native American Fish and Wildlife Resources Manage6 ment Act of 2004’’.

7 (b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—The table of contents of

8 this Act is as follows:

TITLE I—GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 101. Findings.

Sec. 102. Purposes.

Sec. 103. Definitions.
4

2

•S 2301 IS

TITLE II—TRIBAL FISH AND WILDLIFE PROGRAMS

Sec. 201. Management of Tribal Fish and Wildlife Programs.

Sec. 202. Education in Tribal Fish and Wildlife Resource Management.

Sec. 203. Tribal Fish Hatchery Assistance Program.

TITLE III—ALASKA NATIVE FISH AND WILDLIFE PROGRAMS

Sec. 301. Management of Native Fish and Wildlife Programs in Alaska.

Sec. 302. Subsistence Resources and Management Planning.

Sec. 303. Alaska Native Seafood and Resource Marketing Assistance Program.

TITLE IV—TRIBAL SEAFOOD AND RESOURCE MARKETING

ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Sec. 401. Establishment of Tribal Seafood and Resource Marketing Assistance

Program.

Sec. 402. Market Development Loan and Grants Program.

TITLE V—TRIBAL BUFFALO CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT

[to be developed]

TITLE VI—MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS.

Sec. 601. Authorization of Appropriations.

Sec. 602. Regulations.

Sec. 603. Savings.

Sec. 604. Severability.

1 TITLE I—GENERAL PROVISIONS

2 SEC. 101. FINDINGS.

3 Congress finds that—

4 (1) the United States and Indian tribes have a

5 government-to-government relationship;

6 (2) Indian tribes exercise governmental author7 ity over their citizens and their lands, and retain all

8 aspects of their inherent sovereignty not explicitly

9 ceded to the United States;

10 (3) the wise use and sustainable management of

11 tribal fish and wildlife resources has a direct effect

12 on the economic security and health and welfare of

13 Indian tribes;
5

3

•S 2301 IS

1 (4) Indian tribes retain the sovereign govern2 mental authority to exercise some aspects of civil ju3 risdiction over non-members on their reservations,

4 including the exercise of some aspects of civil juris5 diction on non-trust lands;

6 (5) Federal canons of construction require that

7 any modification of a treaty must be expressly pro8 vided for by the Congress;

9 (6) the United States has a trust responsibility

10 to protect, conserve, and manage tribal natural re11 sources, including fish and wildlife and gathering re12 sources, consistent with the rights reserved by In13 dian tribes as reflected in treaties and other agree14 ments with the United States, and judicial decrees;

15 (7) the United States trust responsibility ex16 tends to all Federal agencies and departments, and

17 absent a clear expression of Congressional intent to

18 the contrary, the United States has a duty to admin19 ister Federal fish and wildlife conservation laws and

20 resource management programs in a manner consist21 ent with its fiduciary obligation to honor and protect

22 the rights reserved by Indian tribes as reflected in

23 treaties and other agreements with the United

24 States, and judicial decrees;
6

4

•S 2301 IS

1 (8) Federal statutes and regulations affecting

2 tribal fish and wildlife resources and management

3 activities shall be interpreted in accordance with

4 long-standing principles of Federal-Indian law, stat5 utes, and judicial decrees which inform the relation6 ship between Indian tribal governments and the

7 United States;

8 (9) the United States recognizes that fish and

9 wildlife resources located on tribal lands, in regional

10 tribal resource management areas, and in ceded ter11 ritory in which hunting, fishing, and gathering

12 rights reserved by Indian tribes in treaties and other

13 agreements with the United States, and in judicial

14 decrees, continue to provide sustenance, cultural en15 richment, and economic stability for Indian tribes

16 through employment in resource management occu17 pations;

18 (10) Indian tribal governments retain sovereign

19 governmental authority and jurisdiction to regulate

20 hunting and fishing activities on tribal lands as well

21 as governmental authority to regulate the hunting

22 and fishing activities of tribal citizens on lands out23 side of reservation boundaries;

24 (11) Indian tribal governments serve as co25 managers of fish and wildlife resources with govern-
7

5

•S 2301 IS

1 ments of other tribes, States, and the United States,

2 sharing management responsibilities for fish and

3 wildlife resources pursuant to treaties and agree4 ments with the United States, statutes, and judicial

5 decrees;

6 (12) since time immemorial, Indian cultures, re7 ligious beliefs and customs have centered around

8 their relationships with fish, wildlife, and gathering

9 resources, and Indian people have relied on these re10 sources for food, shelter, clothing, tools, and trade;

11 (13) Indian fish and wildlife resources are re12 newable and manageable natural resources that are

13 among the most valuable tribal assets and which are

14 vital to the well-being of Indian people;

15 (14) Indian lands contain millions of acres of

16 natural lakes, woodlands, and impoundments, thou17 sand of perennial streams, and tens of millions of

18 acres of wildlife habitat;

19 (15) Indian and Alaska Native fish and wildlife

20 programs contribute significantly to the conservation

21 and enhancement of fish, wildlife, and gathering re22 sources, including those resources which are classi23 fied as threatened or endangered;

24 (16) Federal, State, and tribal fish hatcheries

25 produce tens of millions of salmon, steelhead, wall-
8

6

•S 2301 IS

1 eye, and other fish species annually, benefitting both

2 Indian and non-Indian sport and commercial fish3 eries in the United States and Canada, and serving

4 Indian subsistence and ceremonial needs;

5 (17) Indian reservations and Alaska Native

6 communities continue to suffer from the highest

7 rates of unemployment in the nation, and the cur8 rent economic infrastructure and capital base of

9 many tribes and Native communities does not pro10 vide adequate support to take advantage of economic

11 opportunities;

12 (18) comprehensive and improvement manage13 ment of Indian fish and wildlife resources will yield

14 greater economic returns, enhance Indian self-deter15 mination, strengthen tribal self-governance, promote

16 employment opportunities, and improve the social,

17 cultural, and economic well-being of Indian and

18 neighboring communities;

19 (19) the United States has a responsibility to

20 provide assistance to Indian tribes to—

21 (A) enable integrated management and

22 regulation of hunting, fishing, trapping, and

23 gathering activities on tribal lands, including

24 the protection, conservation, and enhancement

25 of resource populations and habitats upon
9

7

•S 2301 IS

1 which the meaningful exercise of Indian rights

2 depend;

3 (B) develop integrated resource manage4 ment plans, cooperative management agree5 ments, and regulations addressing hunting,

6 fishing, trapping, and gathering activities on

7 tribal lands, including the protection, conserva8 tion, and enhancement of resource populations

9 and habitats upon which the meaningful exer10 cise of subsistence activities depend;

11 (C) maintain fish hatcheries and other fa12 cilities and structures required for the prudent

13 management, enhancement, and mitigation of

14 fish and wildlife resources; and

15 (D) assist Indian tribal governments in de16 veloping and enhancing economic opportunities

17 associated with the conservation and manage18 ment of fish and wildlife resources;

19 (20) the United States is committed to the goal

20 of supporting and enhancing tribal self-government,

21 tribal self-sufficiency, and the economic development

22 of Native communities as expressed through numer23 ous Federal statutes; and

24 (21) while the existing network of Federal laws

25 and programs provide a framework for the protec-
10

8

•S 2301 IS

1 tion and management of Indian fish and wildlife re2 sources, gathering resources, and the operation and

3 maintenance of Indian fish production programs and

4 facilities, an integrated and comprehensive approach

5 to these programs will help to ensure the coordina6 tion of Federal agency activities with those of Indian

7 tribal governments as well as the efficiency and ef8 fectiveness of Federal and tribal government pro9 grams.

10 SEC. 102. PURPOSES.

11 The purposes of this Act are—

12 (1) to reaffirm and protect Indian hunting,

13 fishing, trapping, and gathering rights, and to pro14 vide for the conservation, prudent management, en15 hancement, orderly development, and wise use of the

16 resources upon which the meaningful exercise of In17 dian tribal rights depend;

18 (2) to enhance and maximize tribal capability

19 and capacity to meaningfully participate in manag20 ing fish and wildlife resources for the continuing

21 benefit of Indian people, and in co-managing shared

22 resources for the benefit of the Nation, in a manner

23 consistent with the exercise of tribal hunting, fish24 ing, trapping, and gathering rights and the United

25 States trust responsibility to protect the rights re-
11

9

•S 2301 IS

1 served by Indian tribes in treaties with the United

2 States and tribal resources;

3 (3) to support the Federal policy of Indian self4 determination and tribal self-governance by authoriz5 ing and encouraging government-to-government rela6 tions and cooperative agreements amongst Federal,

7 State, local, and tribal governments, as well as inter8 national agencies and commissions responsible for

9 multijurisdictional decision-making regarding fish

10 and wildlife resources;

11 (4) to authorize and establish an Indian Fish

12 Hatchery Assistance Program that may be adminis13 tered by Indian tribal governments to address Indian

14 hatchery needs and fulfill tribal co-management re15 sponsibilities;

16 (5) to authorize and establish an Indian Fish

17 and Wildlife Resource Management Education As18 sistance and Cooperative Research Unit Program to

19 promote and develop full tribal technical capability

20 and competence in managing fish and wildlife re21 source programs and to authorize the Secretary of

22 the Interior, the Secretary of Commerce, the Sec23 retary of Agriculture, and other Federal agencies to

24 enter into cooperative agreements with Indian tribal

25 governments and tribal organizations, colleges, uni-
12

10

•S 2301 IS

1 versities, and nonprofit organizations for the admin2 istration of tribal fish and wildlife cooperative re3 search units;

4 (6) to establish a buffalo conservation and man5 agement program; and

6 (7) to authorize and establish an Indian Sea7 food and Resource Marketing Assistance Program

8 within the Department of Commerce, to provide as9 sistance to and support for the efforts of tribal gov10 ernments to develop and enhance domestic and

11 international markets for seafood, seafood products,

12 and other natural resources.

13 SEC. 103. DEFINITIONS.

14 For purposes of this Act—

15 (1) the term ‘‘Bureau’’ means the Bureau of

16 Indian Affairs within the U.S. Department of the

17 Interior;

18 (2) the term ‘‘ceded territory’’ means land

19 ceded by an Indian tribe or tribes in a treaty with

20 the United States upon which the tribe or tribes re21 tain hunting, fishing, and gathering rights;

22 (3) the terms ‘‘co-management’’ or ‘‘cooperative

23 management’’ mean a process involving two or more

24 governments or governmentally-chartered entities

25 jointly exercising their respective jurisdiction over or
13

11

•S 2301 IS

1 responsibilities for the management or use of a fish

2 or wildlife resource during some phase of the life

3 cycle of that resource;

4 (4) the term ‘‘cooperative agreement’’ means a

5 written agreement entered into by two or more gov6 ernments or parties agreeing to work together to ac7 tively protect, conserve, enhance, restore, or other8 wise manage fish and wildlife resources;

9 (5) the term ‘‘Indian fish hatchery’’ means any

10 single-purpose or multi-purpose facility in which the

11 spawning, hatching, rearing, holding, caring for, or

12 stocking of fish takes place including related re13 search and diagnostic fish health facilities, and

14 which is—

15 (A) owned or operated by an Indian tribal

16 government, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, or

17 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on Indian

18 lands;

19 (B) owned or operated by any government

20 agency pursuant to Federal statute and has as

21 one of its purposes the mitigation, compensa22 tion, restoration, or recovery of fish resources

23 subject to reserved tribal treaty rights and for

24 which an Indian tribe has entered into a coop25 erative agreement or for which an Indian tribe
14

12

•S 2301 IS

1 has petitioned the administering agency to

2 enter into a cooperative agreement for the co3 management of fish resources;

4 (C) owned or operated by a State govern5 ment or a State institution of higher education,

6 and for which an Indian tribe or tribes have en7 tered into a cooperative management agree8 ment;

9 (6) the term ‘‘fish hatchery maintenance’’

10 means work that is required at periodic intervals to

11 prolong the life of a fish hatchery, hatchery compo12 nents, and associated equipment, in order to prevent

13 the need for premature replacement or repair;

14 (7) the term ‘‘fish hatchery rehabilitation’’

15 means non-cyclical work that is required to address

16 the physical deterioration and functional obsoles17 cence of a fish hatchery building, structure, or other

18 facility component, or to repair damage, or to repair

19 damage resulting from aging, natural phenomena,

20 and other causes, including work to repair, modify,

21 or improve facility components to enhance their

22 original function, the application of technological ad23 vances, and the replacement or acquisition of capital

24 equipment, such as, among others, fish distribution

25 tanks, vehicles, and standby generators;
15

13

•S 2301 IS

1 (8) the term ‘‘forest land management activity’’

2 has the same meaning given to such term in section

3 304(4) of the Indian Forest Resources Management

4 Act (25 U.S.C. 3103(4));

5 (9) the term ‘‘Indian’’ means a member of an

6 Indian tribe as defined in section 4 of the Indian

7 Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act

8 (25 U.S.C. 450b(d));

9 (10) the term ‘‘Indian fish and wildlife organi10 zation’’ means a commission, authority, or other en11 tity chartered by one or more Indian tribal govern12 ments for the purpose of representing or coordinat13 ing tribal interests in pursuing resource manage14 ment or rights protection goals and strategies;

15 (11) the term ‘‘Indian fish and wildlife’’ means

16 any species of animal or plant life for which Indians

17 have a right to fish, hunt, trap, or gather for sub18 sistence, ceremonial, recreational, or commercial

19 purposes, or for which an Indian tribal government

20 has management or co-management responsibilities;

21 (12) the term ‘‘Indian lands’’ means all land

22 within the limits of any Indian reservation which is

23 held in trust by the United States, a former Indian

24 reservation in the State of Oklahoma, dependent In25 dian communities within the borders of the United
16

14

•S 2301 IS

1 States whether within or without the limits of a

2 State, and all Indian allotments for which there is

3 a restriction against alienation;

4 (13) the term ‘‘Indian reservation’’ means any

5 reservation of land for an Indian tribe established

6 pursuant to treaties, Acts of Congress or Executive

7 Orders, public domain Indian allotments, former In8 dian reservations in Oklahoma, and dependent In9 dian communities within the borders of the United

10 States whether within or without the limits of a

11 State;

12 (14) the term ‘‘Indian tribe’’ means an Indian

13 tribe as defined in section 4 of the Indian Self-De14 termination and Education Assistance Act (25

15 U.S.C. 450b(e)), which is recognized as eligible for

16 the special programs and services provided by the

17 United States to Indians because of their status as

18 Indians;

19 (15) the term ‘‘integrated resource management

20 plan’’ means a plan developed pursuant to the proc21 ess used by a tribal government to assess resources

22 and to identify comprehensive management objec23 tives including the quality of life, production goals,

24 and landscape descriptions of all designated re25 sources that may include, but are not limited to,
17

15

•S 2301 IS

1 water, fish, wildlife, forestry, agriculture, minerals,

2 recreation, community, and municipal resources, and

3 may include tribal codes and plans related to such

4 resources;

5 (16) the term ‘‘regional resource management

6 areas’’ means those areas in which an Indian tribal

7 government as a right to fish, hunt, gather, or trap

8 for subsistence, ceremonial, or commercial purposes,

9 or in which an Indian tribal government has man10 agement or co-management responsibilities;

11 (17) the term ‘‘reserved rights’’ means those

12 rights and authorities of an Indian tribal govern13 ment retained by the Indian tribe in treaties with

14 the United States, including the right to continue to

15 harvest natural resources within ceded lands and

16 customary use areas and the access necessary to ex17 ercise those rights;

18 (18) the term ‘‘resource management activities’’

19 means all activities performed in managing tribal

20 fish, wildlife, gathering, and related outdoor recre21 ation and resources, including but not limited to—

22 (A) the conduct of fish and wildlife popu23 lation and life history investigations, habitat in24 vestigations, habitat mitigation, enhancement,
18

16

•S 2301 IS

1 rehabilitation and restoration projects and pro2 grams, harvest management, and use studies;

3 (B) the development and implementation

4 of surveys, inventories, geographic information

5 system programs, and integrated resource man6 agement plans for Indian lands, regional re7 source management areas or traditional use

8 areas;

9 (C) fish production and hatchery manage10 ment;

11 (D) the development, implementation, and

12 enforcement of tribal fish and wildlife codes, or13 dinances and regulations;

14 (E) the development of tribal conservation

15 programs, including employment and training

16 of tribal conservation enforcement officers;

17 (F) judicial services;

18 (G) public use and information manage19 ment and general administration; and

20 (H) participation in joint or cooperative

21 management of fish and wildlife resources on a

22 regional basis with Federal, State, tribal, local,

23 or international authorities;

24 (19) the term ‘‘Secretary’’ means the Secretary

25 of the U.S. Department of the Interior;
19

17

•S 2301 IS

1 (20) The term ‘‘seafood’’ means any plant or

2 animal that may be gathered, collected, or harvested

3 in marine or fresh water;

4 (21) The term ‘‘traditional use area’’ means

5 lands that Indian tribes and their members have his6 torically, culturally, and geographically used for spir7 itual, social, political, economic, and sustenance pur8 poses;

9 (22) The term ‘‘tribal co-management’’ means

10 the sharing of decision-making, resource informa11 tion, and management responsibilities with one or

12 more governments in local, regional, national, and

13 international fish and wildlife resource management

14 processes;

15 (23) The term ‘‘tribal government’’ means the

16 governing body of an Indian tribe; and

17 (24) The term ‘‘tribal organization’’ has the

18 meaning given to such term in section 4 of the In19 dian Self-Determination and Educational Assistance

20 Act (25 U.S.C. 450b), including tribal fish and wild21 life organizations.
20

18

•S 2301 IS

1 TITLE II—TRIBAL FISH AND

2 WILDLIFE PROGRAMS

3 TRIBAL MANAGEMENT OF INDIAN FISH, WILDLIFE, AND

4 GATHERING RESOURCES

5 SEC. 201. MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES.

6 (a) Consistent with provisions of the Indian Self-De7 termination and Educational Assistance Act (25 U.S.C.

8 450b et seq.), the Secretary shall support tribal adminis9 tration of Indian fish and wildlife resource management

10 activities to achieve the following objectives:

11 (1) To carry out the government-to-government

12 relationship between Indian tribal governments and

13 the United States in the management of Indian fish

14 and wildlife resources.

15 (2) To protect Indian hunting, fishing, and

16 gathering rights reserved by Indian tribe in treaties

17 with the United States, or guaranteed to Indian

18 tribes by the United States through statute, Execu19 tive Order, or court decree.

20 (3) To provide for the development and en21 hancement of the capacities of Indian tribal govern22 ments to manage Indian fish and wildlife resources.

23 (4) To protect, conserve and enhance Indian

24 fish and wildlife resources that are important to the
21

19

•S 2301 IS

1 subsistence, cultural enrichment, and economic de2 velopment of Indian communities.

3 (5) To promote the development and use of In4 dian fish and wildlife resources for the maximum

5 benefit of Indian people, by managing tribal re6 sources in accordance with tribally-developed inte7 grated resource management plans which provide for

8 the comprehensive management of all natural re9 sources.

10 (6) To selectively develop and increase produc11 tion of certain fish and wildlife resources.

12 (7) To support the inclusion of tribal co-man13 agement or cooperative activities in local, regional,

14 national, or international decision-making processes

15 and forums.

16 (8) To develop and increase the production of

17 fish, wildlife, and gathering resources so as to better

18 meet tribal subsistence, ceremonial, recreational, and

19 commercial needs.

20 (b) MANAGEMENT PROGRAM.—

21 (1) In order to achieve the objectives set forth

22 in subsection (a), the Secretary, in full consultation

23 with Indian tribal governments and tribal organiza24 tions, shall establish the Tribal Fish and Wildlife

25 Resource Management Program which shall be ad-
22

20

•S 2301 IS

1 ministered consistent with the provisions of the In2 dian Self-Determination and Educational Assistance

3 Act (25 U.S.C. 450b et seq.).

4 (2) The Secretary shall promote tribal manage5 ment of tribal fish, wildlife, trapping, and gathering

6 resources, and implementation of this Act, through

7 contracts, cooperative agreements, or grants under

8 the Indian Self-Determination and Educational As9 sistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b et seq.), or other Fed10 eral laws.

11 (3) Upon the request of an Indian tribal gov12 ernment or tribal organization, the Secretary shall

13 enter into a contract, cooperative agreement, or a

14 grant under the Indian Self-Determination and Edu15 cational Assistance Act with the tribal government

16 or tribal organization to plan, conduct, or administer

17 any program of the Department of the Interior, or

18 portion thereof, which affects tribal fish and wildlife

19 resources and which is currently administered by the

20 Secretary without regard to the agency or office of

21 the Department of the Interior or the organizational

22 level within the Department.

23 (4) Upon the request of an Indian tribal gov24 ernment or tribal organization, the Secretary shall

25 enter into a cooperative agreement with the tribal
23

21

•S 2301 IS

1 government or tribal organization to address man2 agement issues affecting tribal fish and wildlife re3 sources.

4 (c) MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES.—Tribal fish and wild5 life resource management activities carried out under the

6 program established in subsection (b) may include, but

7 shall not be limited to—

8 (1) the conduct of fish and wildlife population

9 and life history investigations, habitat investigations,

10 habitat mitigation, enhancement, rehabilitation and

11 restoration projects and programs, harvest manage12 ment, and use studies;

13 (2) the development and implementation of in14 tegrated resource management plans for tribal lands

15 or regional resource management areas, surveys, and

16 inventories;

17 (3) fish production and hatchery management;

18 (4) the development, implementation, and en19 forcement of tribal fish and wildlife codes, ordi20 nances, and regulations;

21 (5) the development of tribal conservation pro22 grams, including employment and training of tribal

23 conservation enforcement officers;

24 (6) judicial services;
24

22

•S 2301 IS

1 (7) public use and information management

2 and general administration; and

3 (8) participation in joint or cooperative man4 agement of fish and wildlife resources on a regional

5 basis with Federal, State, tribal, and local or inter6 national authorities.

7 (d) SURVEY AND REPORT.—

8 (1) Upon the request of an Indian tribal gov9 ernment, the Secretary shall cause to be conducted

10 a survey for the reservation of that tribal govern11 ment, which shall include but not be limited to—

12 (A) a review of existing tribal codes, ordi13 nances, and regulations governing the manage14 ment of fish and wildlife resources;

15 (B) an assessment of the need to update

16 and revise tribal codes, ordinances, and regula17 tions governing tribal fish and wildlife resource

18 protection and use;

19 (C) a determination and documentation of

20 the needs for tribal conservation officers, tribal

21 fisheries, and wildlife biologists, and other pro22 fessionals to administer tribal fish and wildlife

23 resources management programs;

24 (D) an assessment of the need to provide

25 training to and develop curricula for tribal fish
25

23

•S 2301 IS

1 and wildlife resource personnel, including tribal

2 conservation officers, tribal fisheries, and wild3 life biologists, and other professionals to admin4 ister tribal fish and wildlife resource manage5 ment programs;

6 (E) an assessment of the need for training

7 of Federal agency staff in matters pertaining to

8 Federal-tribal relations and the significance of

9 fish and wildlife to tribal communities;

10 (F) an assessment of the effects of Federal

11 resource management activities on tribal fish

12 and wildlife resources; and

13 (G) a determination and documentation of

14 the condition of tribal fish and wildlife re15 sources.

16 (2) The Secretary is authorized to enter into

17 contracts or provide grants to Indian tribal govern18 ments or tribal organizations under the authority of

19 the Indian Self-Determination and Educational As20 sistance Act for the purpose of carrying out the sur21 vey.

22 (3) Within one year of the date of enactment of

23 this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Congress

24 a report on the results of the survey conducted

25 under the authority of subsection (1) of this section.
26

24

•S 2301 IS

1 (e) TRIBAL FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCE MAN2 AGEMENT PLANS.—

3 (1) In order to fulfill the management objec4 tives set forth in subsection (a), a tribal fish and

5 wildlife resource management plan shall be devel6 oped and implemented in the following manner:

7 (A) pursuant to a self-determination con8 tract or self-governance compact under the au9 thority of the Indian Self-Determination and

10 Education Assistance Act, an Indian tribal gov11 ernment may develop or implement a tribal fish

12 and wildlife management plan.

13 (B) Subject to the provisions of subpara14 graph (C), the tribal government shall have

15 broad discretion in designing and carrying out

16 the planning process.

17 (C) If a tribal government elects not to

18 contract for the development or implementation

19 of a tribal fish and wildlife management plan,

20 the Secretary shall develop and implement the

21 plan in consultation with the affected tribal

22 government.

23 (D) Whether developed directly by the trib24 al government or by the Secretary, the plan

25 shall—
27

25

•S 2301 IS

1 (i) determine the condition of fish and

2 wildlife resources and habitat conditions;

3 (ii) identify specific tribal fish and

4 wildlife resources goals and objectives;

5 (iii) establish management objectives

6 for fish and wildlife resources;

7 (iv) define critical values of the tribal

8 government and its members and provide

9 for comprehensive management objectives;

10 (v) be developed through public meet11 ings;

12 (vi) use the public meeting records,

13 existing survey documents, reports, and

14 other research from Federal agencies and

15 tribal colleges, State or community col16 leges, or other tribal education or research

17 institutions; and

18 (vii) be completed within three years

19 of the initiation of activity to establish the

20 plan.

21 (2) Tribal fish and wildlife management plans

22 developed and approved under this section shall gov23 ern the management and administration of tribal

24 fish and wildlife resources by the Bureau of Indian

25 Affairs and the Indian tribal government.
28

26

•S 2301 IS

1 (f) TRIBAL MANAGEMENT IN REGIONAL RESOURCE

2 MANAGEMENT AREAS.—

3 (1) REVIEW.—To achieve the objectives set

4 forth in section 210(a), the Secretary and the Sec5 retaries of Commerce and Agriculture shall review

6 existing programs involving the multi-jurisdictional

7 management of fish, wildlife and gathering resources

8 in regional resource management areas, for the pur9 pose of determining the need for Indian representa10 tion, program adequacy and staffing needs to appro11 priately represent the interests of member tribes.

12 (2) CONTRACTS OR GRANTS.—The Secretary is

13 authorized to enter into contracts or provide grants

14 to Indian tribal governments or tribal organizations

15 under the authority of the Indian Self-Determination

16 and Educational Assistance Act for the purpose of

17 completing this review.

18 (3) REPORT.—Within one year of the date of

19 enactment of this Act, the Secretary, in consultation

20 with the Secretaries of Commerce and Agriculture,

21 shall submit a report to the Congress based upon

22 the review conducted under subsection (1) of this

23 section assessing fish and wildlife program adequacy

24 and staff needs, and the condition of fish and wild-
29

27

•S 2301 IS

1 life resources in regional resource management

2 areas.

3 (g) ASSISTANCE.—The Secretary is authorized to

4 provide financial and technical assistance to enable Indian

5 tribal governments to—

6 (1) update and revise tribal codes, ordinances,

7 and regulations governing tribal fish and wildlife re8 source protection and use;

9 (2) employ tribal conservation officers, tribal

10 fisheries and wildlife biologists, and other profes11 sionals to administer Indian fish and wildlife re12 source management programs;

13 (3) providing training for tribal fish and wildlife

14 resource personnel including tribal conservation offi15 cers under a curriculum that incorporates law en16 forcement, fish and wildlife conservation, identifica17 tion and resource management principles and tech18 niques; and

19 (4) enable tribal governments and tribal con20 servation agencies to enter into cooperative law en21 forcement agreements, which may include provisions

22 for additional training and cross-deputization of

23 tribal law enforcement staff, with local, State, and

24 Federal jurisdiction for the enforcement of laws and

25 regulations pertaining to fish and wildlife resources.
30

28

•S 2301 IS

1 (h) FEDERAL ACTIVITIES.—

2 (1) CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION.—In

3 conducting management activities under their re4 spective authorities, the Secretary, in coordination

5 with the Secretaries of Commerce and Agriculture,

6 shall—

7 (A) consult with and seek the participation

8 of Indian tribal governments on matters affect9 ing tribal fish and wildlife resources in a man10 ner consistent with the United States trust re11 sponsibility and the government-to-government

12 relationship between Indian tribal governments

13 and the United States;

14 (B) ensure that Federal agency staff are

15 adequately trained in issues pertaining to im16 pacts of agency actions on tribal fish and wild17 life resources;

18 (C) investigate opportunities for Indian

19 tribal governments to perform land manage20 ment activities on Federal land which affect

21 tribal fish and wildlife resources;

22 (D) develop a formal, written assessment

23 of how Federal resource management activities

24 are affecting tribal use of and access to tribal

25 fish and wildlife resources; and
31

29

•S 2301 IS

1 (E) include rights reserved by tribal gov2 ernments in treaties with the United States in

3 assessments of environmental baselines.

4 (2) PROTECTION OF INFORMATION.—Notwith5 standing any other provision of law, the Secretary

6 shall not disclose, nor cause the disclosure of any in7 formation conveyed to an agency under the Sec8 retary’s administrative responsibilities pursuant to

9 this Act to any person, party, or entity, including

10 other Federal agencies, that is made available to the

11 Secretary by an Indian tribal government or a mem12 ber of an Indian tribe and which is—

13 (A) related to the administration of the

14 United States trust responsibility for Indian

15 lands and resources; and

16 (B) declared by the tribal government or

17 individual member of an Indian tribe to be cul18 turally-sensitive, proprietary, or in any manner

19 confidential.

20 (3) FEES AND ACCESS.—Upon the request of

21 an Indian tribal government, the Secretary and the

22 Secretary of Agriculture are authorized to—

23 (A) provide fish and wildlife resources to

24 an Indian tribal government from Federal lands

25 administered by agencies under their respective
32

30

•S 2301 IS

1 administrative responsibility without permit or

2 charge to the Indian tribe having an historical

3 relationship to such lands, so long as—

4 (i) an agreement is entered into be5 tween the Indian tribal government and

6 the Secretary or Secretary of Agriculture

7 which contains sufficient information and

8 conditions regarding the location, quantity,

9 timing, and methods associated with the

10 provision of fish and wildlife resources to

11 ensure compatibility with applicable agency

12 management plans; and

13 (ii) the request does not adversely af14 fect the ability of the agency to carry out

15 its responsibilities under the applicable

16 management plan;

17 (B) provide access to Federal lands under

18 their respective administrative responsibility for

19 tribal traditional cultural or customary pur20 poses without permit or fee; and

21 (C) temporarily close to general public use,

22 one or more specific portions of Federal lands

23 under their respective administrative respon24 sibility in order to protect the privacy of the ac25 tivities referenced in subsection (B), provided
33

31

•S 2301 IS

1 that any such closure shall be limited to the

2 smallest practicable area for the minimum pe3 riod necessary in a manner consistent with the

4 purpose and intent of the American Indian Re5 ligious Freedom Act (42 U.S. C. 1996).

6 (4) EFFECT ON EXISTING RIGHTS.—Nothing in

7 this section shall be construed to limit, modify, or

8 amend existing rights of any Indian tribal govern9 ment under treaty, statute, or other agreement to

10 access and use fish and wildlife resources.

11 SEC. 202. EDUCATION IN TRIBAL FISH AND WILDLIFE RE12 SOURCE MANAGEMENT.

13 (a) COOPERATIVE RESEARCH AND TRAINING PRO14 GRAM.—

15 (1) The Secretary, the Secretary of Agriculture,

16 the Secretary of Commerce, or other Federal agen17 cies as appropriate, are authorized to enter into co18 operative agreements with colleges and universities,

19 tribal community colleges, Indian tribal govern20 ments, and tribal organizations, and with nonprofit

21 organizations, for the establishment of cooperative

22 research and training units.

23 (2) In order to facilitate the full development of

24 research and training units and to support the edu25 cational objectives of this title, the Secretary, and
34

32

•S 2301 IS

1 the Secretaries of Agriculture and Commerce, as

2 well as other Federal agencies, shall—

3 (A) assign appropriate scientific personnel

4 to serve at the cooperative unit, through the

5 agreement of the cooperating parties;

6 (B) apply Indian preference in hiring poli7 cies;

8 (C) provide financial assistance, including

9 reasonable compensation, for the work of re10 searchers on fish and wildlife ecology and re11 source management projects funded under this

12 Act or other authorizing legislation;

13 (D) supply equipment for the use of coop14 erative unit operations;

15 (E) provide for the incidental expenses of

16 Federal personnel and employees of cooperating

17 tribal governments and tribal organizations as18 sociated with cooperative units; and

19 (F) integrate cooperative research unit

20 programs with the training and educational op21 portunities and programs of Indian community

22 colleges to the greatest extent possible.

23 (b) SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM.—

24 (1) The Secretary is authorized to provide natu25 ral resource management scholarships to Indians en-
35

33

•S 2301 IS

1 rolled as full-time students in accredited programs

2 for post-secondary and graduate natural resource

3 management-related fields of study.

4 (2) A natural resource management scholarship

5 recipient shall be required to enter into an obligated

6 service agreement in which the recipient agrees to

7 accept employment, following the completion of the

8 recipient’s course of study, with an Indian tribal

9 government, a tribal organization, the Bureau of In10 dian Affairs, or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

11 for one year for each year the recipient receives

12 scholarship assistance.

13 (3) The Secretary shall not deny scholarship as14 sistance under this subsection solely on the basis of

15 an applicant’s scholastic achievement if the applicant

16 has been admitted to and remains in good standing

17 in an accredited post-secondary or graduate institu18 tion.

19 (c) FISH AND WILDLIFE EDUCATION OUTREACH.—

20 The Secretary shall conduct, with the full and active par21 ticipation of Indian tribal governments, a natural resource

22 education outreach program to explain and stimulate in23 terest in all aspects of tribal natural resource management

24 and to generate interest in natural resource management
36

34

•S 2301 IS

1 careers, such as fisheries or wildlife biologists or in natural

2 resource management.

3 (d) POSTGRADUATE RECRUITMENT.—The Secretary

4 shall establish and maintain a program to attract profes5 sional Indian fish and wildlife biologists, as well as profes6 sionals in other natural resource management fields, who

7 have graduated from post-secondary institutions or grad8 uate schools for employment by Indian tribal governments,

9 tribal organizations, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, or the

10 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in exchange for the Sec11 retary’s assumption of all or a portion of the professional’s

12 outstanding educational loans, depending upon the period

13 of employment.

14 (e) FISH AND WILDLIFE BIOLOGIST INTERN PRO15 GRAM.—

16 (1) The Secretary shall, with the full and active

17 participation of Indian tribal governments, establish

18 a Fish and Wildlife Resources Intern Program for at

19 least 20 Indian fish and wildlife resources intern po20 sitions.

21 (A) Intern positions shall be in addition to

22 the forester intern positions authorized in sec23 tion 314(a) of the National Indian Forest Re24 sources Management Act (25 U.S.C. 3113(a)).
37

35

•S 2301 IS

1 (B) Individuals selected to participate in

2 the intern program shall be enrolled full-time in

3 approved post-secondary institutions or grad4 uate schools in curricula leading to advanced

5 degrees in natural resource management-related

6 fields.

7 (C) The Secretary shall pay all costs of

8 tuition, books, fees, and living expenses in9 curred by Indian interns in natural resource

10 management programs while attending ap11 proved study programs.

12 (D) An Indian fish and wildlife resources

13 intern shall be required to enter into an obli14 gated service agreement to serve in a profes15 sional fish or wildlife resources management-re16 lated capacity with an Indian tribal govern17 ment, a tribal organization, the Bureau of In18 dian Affairs, or a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv19 ice program serving tribal fish and wildlife re20 sources management objectives, for one year for

21 each year of education for which the Secretary

22 assumes the intern’s educational costs under

23 subsection (2).

24 (E) An Indian fish and wildlife resources

25 intern shall be required to report for service to
38

36

•S 2301 IS

1 the employing entity during any break in the

2 intern’s course of study of more than 3 weeks

3 duration. Time spent in such service shall be

4 counted toward satisfaction of the intern’s obli5 gated service.

6 (f) COOPERATIVE EDUCATION PROGRAM.—

7 (1) The Secretary shall maintain a cooperative

8 education program for the purpose of recruiting

9 promising Indian students who are enrolled in sec10 ondary schools, tribal colleges, community colleges,

11 and other post-secondary institutions or graduate

12 schools for employment as professional fisheries or

13 wildlife biologists or other resource management re14 lated professional positions with an Indian tribal

15 government, a tribal organization, the Bureau of In16 dian Affairs, or with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

17 Service serving or benefitting Indian lands.

18 (2) The Secretary shall pay all costs for tuition,

19 books, and fees of an Indian student who is enrolled

20 in a course of study at an educational institution

21 with which the Secretary has entered into a coopera22 tive agreement, and who is interested in pursuing a

23 career with an Indian tribal government, tribal orga24 nization, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, or the U.S.
39

37

•S 2301 IS

1 Fish and Wildlife Service serving or benefitting In2 dian lands.

3 (3) Financial need shall not be a requirement

4 to receive assistance under the program authorized

5 in paragraph (1).

6 (4) A recipient of assistance under the program

7 authorized in paragraph (1) shall be required to

8 enter into an obligated service agreement to serve as

9 professional fish or wildlife biologist or other re10 source management related professional with an In11 dian tribal government, a tribal organization, the

12 Bureau of Indian Affairs, or the U.S. Fish and

13 Wildlife Service, for one year for each year that the

14 Secretary assumes the recipient’s educational costs

15 pursuant to paragraph (2).

16 (g) PUBLIC EDUCATION REGARDING TRIBAL FISH

17 AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES.—

18 (1) The Secretary is authorized to establish

19 within the Secretary’s office the position of Tribal

20 Education Coordinator to—

21 (A) enhance communications between In22 dian tribal governments and the United States

23 relating to the management of tribal fish and

24 wildlife resources or the role of tribal govern-
40

38

•S 2301 IS

1 ments in the co-management of fish and wildlife

2 resources; and

3 (B) implement a program to educate the

4 public about the sovereign status of Indian trib5 al governments and the rights reserved by tribal

6 governments in treaties with the United States,

7 as well as the benefits of constructive relations

8 among tribal governments, State, and local gov9 ernments, and Federal agencies;

10 (2) The responsibilities and duties of the Tribal

11 Education Coordinator shall include—

12 (A) the development of an educational pro13 gram for local and State governments and Fed14 eral agencies regarding the United States obli15 gations to support and implement treaties, stat16 utes, executive orders and court decrees related

17 to the management of fish and wildlife re18 sources;

19 (B) encouraging Federal agencies and

20 State governments to establish and pursue co21 operative and collaborative government-to-gov22 ernment relationships with Indian tribal govern23 ments in the management of natural resources;

24 and
41

39

•S 2301 IS

1 (C) providing reports to the Committee on

2 Indian Affairs of the U.S. Senate and the Com3 mittee on Resources of the U.S. House of Rep4 resentatives by September 30th of each year on

5 the progress of the Tribal Education Coordina6 tor in carrying out these activities.

7 (h) ADEQUACY OF PROGRAMS.—The Secretary shall

8 provide administrative oversight of the programs described

9 in this section until a sufficient number of Indian person10 nel are available to administer tribal fish and wildlife re11 source management programs on tribal lands and resource

12 management areas.

13 (i) OBLIGATED SERVICE; BREACH OF CONTRACT.—

14 (1) OBLIGATED SERVICE.—Where an individual

15 enters into an agreement for obligated service in re16 turn for financial assistance under any provision of

17 this section, the Secretary shall promulgate such

18 regulations as are necessary to provide for an offer

19 of employment to the recipient of such assistance as

20 required by such provision. Where an offer of em21 ployment is not reasonably made, the regulations

22 shall provide that such service shall no longer be re23 quired.

24 (2) BREACH OF CONTRACT.—Where an individ25 ual fails to accept a reasonable offer of employment
42

40

•S 2301 IS

1 in fulfillment of such obligated service or unreason2 ably terminates or fails to perform the duties of such

3 employment, the Secretary shall require a repayment

4 of the financial assistance provided to the individual

5 by the Secretary, pro rated for the amount of time

6 of obligated service that was performed, together

7 with interest on such amount which would be pay8 able if at the time the amounts were paid, they were

9 loans bearing interest at the maximum legal prevail10 ing rate, as determined by the Secretary of the

11 Treasury.

12 SEC. 203. TRIBAL FISH HATCHERY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.

13 (a) PROGRAM.—The Secretary, in consultation with

14 the Secretary of Commerce, and with the full and active

15 participation of Indian tribal governments, shall establish

16 and administer a Tribal Fish Hatchery Assistance pro17 gram for the production and distribution of fish of the

18 species, strain, number, size, and quality to assist Indian

19 tribal governments to develop tribal hatcheries and en20 hance fshery resources on tribal lands to meet tribal re21 source needs, including but not limited to tribal subsist22 ence, ceremonial and commercial fishery needs.

23 (b) REPORT.—Within one year of the date of enact24 ment of this Act, the Secretary, in consultation with the

25 Secretary of Commerce, and with the full and active par-
43

41

•S 2301 IS

1 ticipation of Indian tribal governments, shall submit a re2 port to the Congress which shall—

3 (1) identify the facilities that comprise the

4 Tribal Fish Hatchery Program;

5 (2) the maintenance, rehabilitation, and the

6 construction needs of such facilities;

7 (3) identify criteria and procedures to be used

8 in evaluating and ranking fish hatchery maintenance

9 and rehabilitation project proposals submitted by In10 dian tribal governments; and

11 (4) provide a plan for the administration and

12 cost-effective operation of the Tribal Fish Hatchery

13 Assistance Program.

14 (c) CONTRACTS.—The Secretary, and the Secretary

15 of Commerce, are authorized to enter into a contract or

16 annual funding agreement under the authority of the In17 dian Self-Determination and Educational Assistance Act

18 with an Indian tribal government to plan, conduct, and

19 administer the Tribal Fish Hatchery Program, or any por20 tion of the Program.

21 (d) FISH HATCHERY OPERATING AGREEMENTS.—

22 Upon the petition of an Indian tribal government or a trib23 al organization seeking to co-manage a facility or complex

24 of facilities, the Secretary, and the Secretary of Com25 merce, are authorized to enter into agreements with enti-
44

42

•S 2301 IS

1 ties owning or operating hatcheries defined under section

2 103(5)(B) of this Act and an Indian tribal government

3 or tribal organization which provides for the manner in

4 which each hatchery facility is to be operated so as to miti5 gate or recover tribal fish resources subject to rights re6 served by the tribal government in treaties with the United

7 States.

8 TITLE III—ALASKA NATIVE FISH

9 AND WILDLIFE PROGRAMS

10 SEC. 301. DEFINITIONS.

11 For purposes of this title—

12 (1) the term ‘‘Alaska Native’’ means a citizen

13 of the United States who is a person of one-fourth

14 degree or more Alaska Indian (including Tsimshian

15 Indians not enrolled in the Metlakatla Indian Com16 munity) Eskimo, or Aleut blood, or combination

17 thereof, including, in the absence of proof of a mini18 mum blood quantum, any citizen of the United

19 States who is regarded as an Alaska Native by the

20 Native village or Native group of which he claims to

21 be a member and whose father or mother is, or, if

22 deceased, was regarded as an Alaska Native by any

23 village or group, as defined in section 1602(b) of the

24 Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act;
45

43

•S 2301 IS

1 (2) the term ‘‘Native village’’ means ‘‘any tribe,

2 band, clan, group, village, community, or association

3 in the State of Alaska listed in sections 1610 and

4 1615 of this title, and which the Secretary deter5 mines was, on the 1970 census enumeration date,

6 composed of twenty-five or more Natives’’ as defined

7 in section 1602(c) of the Alaska Native Claims Set8 tlement Act;

9 (3) the term ‘‘Regional Corporation’’ means an

10 Alaska Native Regional Corporation established

11 under the laws of the State of Alaska as defined in

12 section 1602(g) of the Alaska Native Claims Settle13 ment Act;

14 (4) the term ‘‘Village Corporation’’ means an

15 Alaska Native Village Corporation organized under

16 the laws of the State of Alaska as a business for

17 profit or non-profit corporation to hold, invest, man18 age, and/or distribute lands, property, funds, and

19 other rights and assets for and in behalf of a Native

20 Village as defined in section 1602(j) of the Alaska

21 Native Claims Settlement Act; and

22 (5) the term ‘‘Alaska Native fish and wildlife

23 organization’’ means a commission, authority or

24 other entity chartered for the primary purpose of as-
46

44

•S 2301 IS

1 sisting in the development of tribal natural resource

2 management capacity and technical capabilities.

3 SEC. 302. MANAGEMENT OF ALASKA NATIVE TRIBAL GOV4 ERNMENT INDIAN FISH AND WILDLIFE RE5 SOURCE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS IN ALAS6 KA.

7 (a) MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES.—Consistent with

8 provisions of the Indian Self-Determination and Edu9 cational Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b et seq.), the Sec10 retary shall support tribal administration of Indian fish

11 and wildlife resource management activities to achieve the

12 following objectives:

13 (1) To carry out the government-to-government

14 relationship between Indian tribal governments and

15 the United States in the management of Indian fish

16 and wildlife resources.

17 (2) To provide for the development and en18 hancement of the capacity of Indian tribal govern19 ments to participate in management of Indian fish

20 and wildlife resources.

21 (3) To protect, conserve and enhance Indian

22 fish and wildlife resources.

23 (4) To promote the development and use of In24 dian fish and wildlife resources for the maximum

25 benefit of Alaska Native people, by managing Indian
47

45

•S 2301 IS

1 fish and wildlife resources in accordance with trib2 ally-developed integrated resource management plans

3 which provide for the cooperative management of all

4 natural resources within tribal lands.

5 (5) To selectively develop and increase produc6 tion of certain Indian fish and wildlife resources.

7 (6) To support the inclusion of Alaska Native

8 tribal co-management or cooperative activities in

9 local, regional, State, national, or international deci10 sion-making processes and forums.

11 (7) To develop and increase the production of

12 fish, wildlife and gathering resources so as to better

13 meet Alaska Native subsistence, ceremonial, rec14 reational and commercial needs.

15 (b) MANAGEMENT PROGRAM.—

16 (1) In order to achieve the objectives set forth

17 in subsection (a), the Secretary, in full consultation

18 with Indian tribal governments and Alaska Native

19 fish and wildlife organizations, shall establish the

20 Alaska Native Fish and Wildlife Resource Manage21 ment Program which shall be administered consist22 ent with the provisions of the Indian Self-Deter23 mination and Educational Assistance Act (25 U.S.C.

24 450b et seq.).
48

46

•S 2301 IS

1 (2) The Secretary shall promote meaningful In2 dian tribal government involvement in the manage3 ment of Indian fish and wildlife resources, and im4 plementation of this Act, through contracts, com5 pacts, cooperative agreements, or grants under the

6 Indian Self-Determination and Educational Assist7 ance act (25 U.S.C. 450b et seq.), or other Federal

8 laws.

9 (3) Upon the request of an Indian tribal gov10 ernment or Alaska Native fish and wildlife organiza11 tion, the Secretary shall enter into a contract, com12 pact, cooperative agreement, or a grant under the

13 Indian Self-Determination and Educational Assist14 ance Act with the Indian tribal government or Alas15 ka Native fish and wildlife organization to plan, con16 duct, or administer any program of the Department

17 of the Interior, or portion thereof, which affects In18 dian fish and wildlife resources, and which is cur19 rently administered by the Secretary without regard

20 to the agency or office of the Department of the In21 terior or the organizational level within the Depart22 ment.

23 (4) Upon the request of an Indian tribal gov24 ernment or Alaska Native fish and wildlife organiza25 tion, the Secretary shall enter into a cooperative
49

47

•S 2301 IS

1 agreement with the tribal government or Alaska Na2 tive fish and wildlife organization to address man3 agement issues affecting Indian fish and wildlife re4 sources.

5 (c) MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES.—Indian fish and

6 wildlife resource management activities carried out under

7 the program established in subsection (b) may include, but

8 shall not be limited to:

9 (1) the conduct of fish and wildlife population

10 and life history investigations, habitat investigations,

11 habitat mitigation, enhancement, rehabilitation and

12 restoration projects and programs, harvest manage13 ment, and use studies;

14 (2) the development and implementation of in15 tegrated resource management plans for tribal lands

16 or traditional use areas;

17 (3) fish and other aquatic species production

18 and hatchery management;

19 (4) the development, implementation, and en20 forcement of Indian tribal government fish and wild21 life codes, ordinances, and regulations;

22 (5) the development of Indian tribal govern23 ment conservation programs, including employment

24 and training of tribal conservation enforcement offi25 cers;
50

48

•S 2301 IS

1 (6) judicial services;

2 (7) public use and information management

3 and general administration; and

4 (8) participation in joint or cooperative man5 agement of fish and wildlife resources on a regional

6 basis with Federal, State, tribal, and local or inter7 national authorities.

8 (d) SURVEY AND REPORT.—

9 (1) Upon the request of an Indian tribal gov10 ernment, the Secretary shall cause to be conducted

11 a survey of the traditional use area of that tribal

12 government, which shall include but not be limited

13 to:

14 (A) a review of existing Indian tribal gov15 ernment codes, ordinances, and regulations gov16 erning their members and others in relation to

17 the management of Indian fish and wildlife re18 sources;

19 (B) an assessment of the need to update

20 and revise Indian tribal government codes, ordi21 nances, and regulations governing Indian fish

22 and wildlife resource protection and use;

23 (C) a determination and documentation of

24 the needs for tribal conservation officers, tribal

25 fisheries and wildlife biologists, tribal fisheries
51

49

•S 2301 IS

1 and wildlife technicians, and other professionals

2 to administer and implement Indian fish and

3 wildlife resources management programs;

4 (D) an assessment of the need to provide

5 training to and develop curricula for tribal fish

6 and wildlife resource personnel, including tribal

7 conservation officers, tribal fisheries and wild8 life biologists, tribal fisheries and wildlife tech9 nicians, and other professionals to administer

10 and implement tribal fish and wildlife resource

11 management programs. Such curricula shall in12 clude the incorporation of traditional ecological

13 knowledge as well as the traditional;

14 (E) an assessment of the need for training

15 of Federal agency staff in matters pertaining to

16 the relations between the United States and In17 dian tribes and the significance of Indian fish

18 and wildlife to Native villages;

19 (F) an assessment of the effects of Federal

20 and State resource management activities on

21 Indian fish, and wildlife resources; and

22 (G) a determination and documentation of

23 the condition of those Indian fish and wildlife

24 resources.
52

50

•S 2301 IS

1 (2) The Secretary is authorized to enter into

2 contracts, compacts, or provide grants to Indian

3 tribal governments or Alaska Native fish and wildlife

4 organizations under the authority of the Indian Self5 Determination and Educational Assistance Act for

6 the purpose of carrying out the survey.

7 (3) Within one year of the date of enactment of

8 this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Congress

9 a report on the results of the survey conducted

10 under the authority of subsection (1) of this section.

11 (e) INDIAN FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCE MAN12 AGEMENT PLANS.—

13 (1) In order to fulfill the management objec14 tives set forth in subsection (a), an Indian fish and

15 wildlife resource management plan shall be devel16 oped and implemented in the following manner:

17 (A) Pursuant to a self-determination con18 tract or self-governance compact under the au19 thority of the Indian Self-Determination and

20 Education Assistance Act, an Indian tribal gov21 ernment or an Alaska Native fish and wildlife

22 organization may develop or implement an In23 dian fish and wildlife management plan.

24 (B) Subject to the provisions of subpara25 graph (C), the Indian tribal government shall
53

51

•S 2301 IS

1 have broad discretion in designing and carrying

2 out the planning process.

3 (C) If an Indian tribal government elects

4 not to contract for the development or imple5 mentation of a tribal fish and wildlife manage6 ment plan, the Secretary shall develop and im7 plement the plan in consultation with the af8 fected tribal government.

9 (D) Whether developed directly by the trib10 al government or by the Secretary, the plan

11 shall—

12 (i) determine the condition of Indian

13 fish and wildlife resources and habitat con14 ditions;

15 (ii) identify specific Indian fish and

16 wildlife resources goals and objectives;

17 (iii) establish cooperative management

18 objectives for Indian fish and wildlife re19 sources;

20 (iv) define critical values of the Indian

21 tribal government and its members and

22 provide for comprehensive management ob23 jectives;

24 (v) be developed through a public

25 meeting process;
54

52

•S 2301 IS

1 (vi) apply the public meeting records,

2 existing survey documents, reports, and

3 other research from Federal and State

4 agencies, community colleges, or other edu5 cation or research institutions; and

6 (vii) be completed within three years

7 of the initiation of activity to establish the

8 plan.

9 (2) An Indian fish and wildlife management

10 plan developed and approved under this section shall

11 govern the management and administration of In12 dian fish and wildlife resources by the Bureau of In13 dian Affairs and the tribal government.

14 (f) TRIBAL MANAGEMENT IN TRADITIONAL USE

15 AREAS.—

16 (1) REVIEW.—To achieve the objectives set

17 forth in section 302(a), the Secretary and the Sec18 retaries of Commerce and Agriculture shall review

19 existing programs involving the management of In20 dian fish and wildlife resources in the traditional use

21 areas of Indian tribal governments, for the purpose

22 of determining the need for the meaningful involve23 ment of tribal governments, program adequacy, and

24 staffing needs to appropriately represent the inter25 ests of tribal governments.
55

53

•S 2301 IS

1 (2) CONTRACTS OR GRANTS.—The Secretary is

2 authorized to enter into contracts, compacts, or pro3 vide grants to Indian tribal governments or Alaska

4 Native fish and wildlife organizations under the au5 thority of the Indian Self-Determination and Edu6 cational Assistance Act for the purpose of complet7 ing this review.

8 (3) REPORT.—Within one year of the date of

9 enactment of this Act, the Secretary, in consultation

10 with the Secretaries of Commerce and Agriculture,

11 shall submit a report to the Congress based upon

12 the review conducted under subsection (1) of this

13 section assessing fish and wildlife program adequacy

14 and staff needs, and the condition of Indian fish and

15 wildlife resources in the traditional use areas of trib16 al governments.

17 (g) ASSISTANCE.—The Secretary is authorized to

18 provide financial and technical assistance to enable Indian

19 tribal governments to—

20 (1) update and revise tribal government codes,

21 ordinances, and regulations governing Indian fish

22 and wildlife resource protection and use;

23 (2) employ tribal conservation officers, tribal

24 fisheries and wildlife biologists, tribal fish and wild25 life technicians, and other professionals to admin-
56

54

•S 2301 IS

1 ister and implement Indian fish and wildlife resource

2 management programs;

3 (3) provide training for tribal fish and wildlife

4 resource personnel including tribal conservation offi5 cers under a curriculum that incorporates law en6 forcement, fish and wildlife conservation, identifica7 tion and resource management principles and tech8 niques. Such curricula shall also include the incorpo9 ration of traditional ecological knowledge as well as

10 the traditional management strategies and tech11 niques of Alaska Native people; and

12 (4) enable tribal governments and Alaska Na13 tive fish and wildlife organizations to enter into co14 operative law enforcement agreements, which may

15 include provisions for additional training and cross16 deputization of tribal law enforcement staff, with

17 local, State and Federal jurisdiction for the enforce18 ment of laws and regulations pertaining to Indian

19 fish and wildlife resources.

20 (h) FEDERAL ACTIVITIES.—

21 (1) CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION.—In

22 conducting management activities under their re23 spective authorities, the Secretary, in coordination

24 with the Secretaries of Commerce and Agriculture,

25 shall—
57

55

•S 2301 IS

1 (A) consult with and seek the participation

2 of Indian tribal governments on all matters af3 fecting Indian fish and wildlife resources in a

4 manner consistent with the United States trust

5 responsibility,

6 (B) ensure that Federal agency staff are

7 adequately trained in issues pertaining to im8 pacts of agency actions on Indian fish and wild9 life resources;

10 (C) investigate opportunities for Indian

11 tribal governments to perform cooperative land

12 management activities on Federal and other

13 lands that affect Indian fish and wildlife re14 sources; and

15 (D) develop a formal, written assessment

16 of how Federal resource management activities

17 are affecting tribal use of and access to Indian

18 fish and wildlife resources and the traditional

19 use areas of Indian tribal governments.

20 (2) PROTECTION OF INFORMATION.—Notwith21 standing any other provision of law, the Secretary

22 shall not disclose, nor cause the disclosure of any in23 formation conveyed to an agency under the Sec24 retary’s administrative responsibilities pursuant to

25 this Act to any person, party, or entity, including
58

56

•S 2301 IS

1 other Federal agencies, that is made available to the

2 Secretary by an Indian tribal government or a mem3 ber of an Indian tribe and which is—

4 (A) related to the administration of the

5 United States trust responsibility for Indian

6 lands and resources; and

7 (B) declared by the tribal government or

8 individual member of an Indian tribe to be cul9 turally-sensitive, proprietary, or in any manner

10 confidential.

11 (3) FEES AND ACCESS.—Upon the request of

12 an Indian tribal government, the Secretary and the

13 Secretary of Agriculture are authorized to—

14 (A) provide fish and wildlife resources to

15 an Indian tribal government from Federal lands

16 administered by agencies under their respective

17 administrative responsibility without permit or

18 charge to the Indian tribe having an historical,

19 cultural, or geographical relationship to such

20 lands, so long as—

21 (i) an agreement is entered into be22 tween the Indian tribal government and

23 the Secretary or Secretary of Agriculture

24 which contains sufficient information and

25 conditions regarding the location, quantity,
59

57

•S 2301 IS

1 timing, and methods associated with the

2 provision of Indian fish and wildlife re3 sources to ensure compatibility with appli4 cable agency management plans; and

5 (ii) the request does not adversely af6 fect the ability of the agency to carry out

7 its responsibilities under the applicable

8 management plan;

9 (B) provide access to Federal lands under

10 their respective administrative responsibility for

11 tribal traditional cultural or customary pur12 poses without permit or fee; and

13 (C) temporarily close to general public use,

14 one or more specific portions of Federal lands

15 under their respective administrative respon16 sibility in order to protect the privacy of the ac17 tivities referenced in subsection (B), provided

18 that any such closure shall be limited to the

19 smallest practicable area for the minimum pe20 riod necessary in a manner consistent with the

21 purpose and intent of the American Indian Re22 ligious Freedom Act (42 U.S.C. 1996).

23 (4) EFFECT ON EXISTING RIGHTS.—Nothing in

24 this section shall be construed to limit, modify, or

25 amend existing rights of any Indian tribal govern-
60

58

•S 2301 IS

1 ment under statute or other agreement to access and

2 use Indian fish and wildlife resources.

3 SEC. 303. ALASKA NATIVE TRIBAL GOVERNMENT SEAFOOD

4 AND RESOURCE MARKETING ASSISTANCE

5 PROGRAM.

6 (a) The Secretary of Commerce shall establish an

7 Alaska Native Seafood and Resource Marketing Assist8 ance Program to enable participating Indian tribal govern9 ments and Alaska Native fish and wildlife organizations

10 to develop the necessary infrastructure and marketing sys11 tems to effectively promote their products domestically

12 and internationally.

13 (b) Within one year of the date of enactment of this

14 Act, working with participating Indian tribal governments,

15 the Secretary of Commerce shall develop and submit a re16 port to the Committee on Indian Affairs of the U.S. Sen17 ate and the Committee on Resources of the U.S. House

18 of Representatives, that contains recommendations for

19 legislation to provide subsidies and other Federal support,

20 permissive taxing and coordinated training, promotions,

21 and Alaska Native Tribal product labeling as well as other

22 initiatives, that hold the potential to significantly enhance

23 the ability of tribal governments to assure that fair and

24 equitable prices are associated with seafood, bison, rein-
61

59

•S 2301 IS

1 deer, muskox, yak, and other produced and harvested nat2 ural resources related products.

3 (c) Within one year of the date of enactment of this

4 Act, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, in consulta5 tion with Indian tribal governments, shall prepare a report

6 to the Committee on Indian Affairs of the U.S. Senate

7 and the Committee on Resources of the U.S. House of

8 Representatives, that contains recommendations for legis9 lation that would enable Indian tribal governments to be

10 recognized as competent processing authorities as well as

11 recommendations for the provision of technical assistance

12 to tribal enterprises so as to ensure that seafood, buffalo,

13 reindeer, muskox, yak, and other harvested natural re14 source products are safe for consumption.

15 TITLE IV—TRIBAL SEAFOOD AND

16 RESOURCE MARKETING AS17 SISTANCE PROGRAM

18 SEC. 401. ESTABLISHMENT.

19 (a) The Secretary of Commerce shall establish a Trib20 al Seafood and Resource Marketing Assistance Program

21 to enable participating Indian tribal governments and trib22 al organizations to develop the necessary infrastructure

23 and marketing systems to effectively promote their prod24 ucts domestically and internationally.
62

60

•S 2301 IS

1 (b) Within one year of the date of enactment of this

2 Act, working with participating Indian tribal governments,

3 the Secretary of Commerce shall develop and submit a re4 port to the Committee on Indian Affairs of the U.S. Sen5 ate and the Committee on Resources of the U.S. House

6 of Representatives, that contains recommendations for

7 legislation to provide subsidies and other Federal support,

8 permissive taxing and coordinated training and pro9 motions, as well as other initiatives, that hold the potential

10 to significantly enhance the ability of tribal governments

11 to assure that fair and equitable prices are associated with

12 harvested natural resources and seafood products.

13 (c) Within one year of the date of enactment of this

14 Act, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, in consulta15 tion with Indian tribal governments, shall prepare a report

16 to the Committee on Indian Affairs of the U.S. Senate

17 and the Committee on Resources of the U.S. House of

18 Representatives, that contains recommendations for legis19 lation that would enable Indian tribal governments to be

20 recognized as competent processing authorities as well as

21 recommendations for the provision of technical assistance

22 to tribal enterprises so as to ensure that seafood and other

23 harvested natural resource products are safe for consump24 tion.

25 (d) Health Issues. [to be developed]
63

61

•S 2301 IS

1 SEC. 402. MARKETING DEVELOPMENT GRANTS AND LOAN

2 PROGRAM. [to be developed]

3 (a) GRANTS FOR MARKET RESEARCH AND PILOT

4 PROGRAMS.

5 (b) LOANS FOR INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT.

6 TITLE V—TRIBAL BISON CON7 SERVATION AND MANAGE8 MENT [to be developed]

9 TITLE VI—MISCELLANEOUS

10 PROVISIONS

11 SEC. 601. REGULATIONS.

12 Except as otherwise provided by this Act, the Sec13 retary shall promulgate final regulations for the imple14 mentation of this Act within 18 months of the date of en15 actment of this Act with the full and active participation

16 of Indian tribal governments.

17 SEC. 602. SEVERABILITY.

18 If any section or provision of this Act is held invalid,

19 it is the intent of the Congress that the remaining sections

20 or provisions shall continue in full force and effect.

21 SEC. 603. SAVINGS.

22 (a) Nothing in this Act shall be construed to—

23 (1) diminish or expand the United States trust

24 responsibility for tribal fish and wildlife resources, or

25 any legal obligation or remedy arising out of the

26 United States trust responsibility;
64

62

•S 2301 IS

1 (2) alter, abridge, repeal, or affect any valid,

2 existing agreement between an agency of the United

3 States and an Indian tribal government;

4 (3) alter, abridge, diminish, repeal, or affect the

5 reserved rights of any Indian tribal government es6 tablished by treaty, executive order, or other applica7 ble laws or court decrees.

8 TITLE VII—AUTHORIZATION OF

9 APPROPRIATIONS

10 There are authorized to be appropriated such sums

11 as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this Act.

Æ
65

Senator INOUYE. Now, may I call upon our first panel. The first

panel consists of the chairman of the Northwest Indian Fisheries

Commission of Olympia, Washington, Billy Frank, Jr.; the chairman of the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission of Portland, OR, Olney Patt, Jr.; and the chairman of the Southwest Tribal Fisheries Commission of Lakeside, AZ, Mr. Arthur ‘‘Butch’’ Blazer.

May I first call upon Chairman Frank.

STATEMENT OF BILLY FRANK, JR., CHAIRMAN, NORTHWEST

INDIAN FISHERIES COMMISSION

Mr. FRANK. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I am Billy Frank,

chairman of the Northwest Indian Fish Commission for the last 25

years. It is an honor to be here today with members of the committee, as well as our chairman.

On behalf of our 20 tribes of the Northwest Indian Fish Commission we are pleased to appear before the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs to provide supportive comments on the Native American Fish and Wildlife Management Act.

Today, we will provide some general comments with the intention of providing more specific comments pertinent to S. 2301 over

the coming weeks. We sincerely thank you and your staff for your

extensive investment of time and energy in this legislation. We

commend you.

Tribes have managed fish and wildlife resources for thousands of

years. Our treaties are now 150 years old in the Northwest. In

United States v. Washington, one of our cases that was brought by

the United States v. Washington in 1974 is now 30 years old. Out

of that case, confirmed by the United States Supreme Court in

1979, came many legal principles as other principles of our tribes.

One was the co-management of our tribes, that we use to set regulations and work with all of our tribes. Out of that came the

Northwest Indian Fish Commission, an arm of all the tribes, to coordinate all of our fishery issues, internationally and 200 miles out

in the ocean. So we are managers.

We need funding. We need Congress to come forward with legislation to give us funding for what we do as managers. We need

training and education. We need legal support, technical and policy-level coordination support, and public opinion support.

Tribes are good fish and wildlife managers. They always have

been. We are not asking for anything we are not already supposed

to have—to fish, hunt, gather and manage. It should not scare anyone. We are not trying to take over Federal lands or anything else.

We are looking for ways to work together for common benefits.

We gather berries from Canada clear down into Mexico on the

Cascade Range, that runs south from Canada. That is where we

have our ceremonies—up in the mountains on Federal lands. The

range of the mountains are all Federal lands. It is protected by our

Federal Government. But on that mountain they have signs that

these areas are set aside for treaty Indian rights, for camping, for

ceremonies. They have parks. They have real nice places for us to

camp and have fires and gather our medicines, as well as our berries.
66

It is a place for Indian people to come and drive around and

think back of the memories of the many times that they have

camped in that mountain. My brother and I drive there at least

five or six times a year and just drive through the roads and think

of all the memories of our past, of our grandmas and grandpas, and

our children that played and enjoyed that mountain.

We have memoranda of understandings; we have agreements

with the Federal agencies that protect that land—for not only us,

but for everyone, all the public; not only for the 20 tribes that I

represent—it goes clean into Oregon and the Yakimas on the other

side of the mountain. All of our people enjoy that range of mountain that is Federal lands. This bill would enhance all of that that

I am talking about.

We need protection. We need protection. I talked about the Federal funding. We are looking out into the next 100 or 200 years of

protection and managing the resource in our country, in our own

backyards. We have agreements with the big business of the State

of Washington. We have agreements with the timber industry on

timber fish and wildlife. We have agreements with in-stream flows,

with the utilities on our rivers. We have hundreds and hundreds

of rivers and streams. We have agreements with the agriculture

people, as well as a lot of our people that live on our watersheds.

The Indian tribes are on those watersheds 24 hours a day. We

are there managing 24 hours a day. We live there. We have coalitions of all people of the State of Washington. We have coalitions

of environmentalists. We have coalitions of agriculture people,

farmers, and timber people. We have shellfish agreements out into

the Puget Sound and along the Pacific Coast. We are working with

the Federal agencies as partners, as well as the State of Washington and all their agencies.

So we welcome and support this bill today, S. 2301. As you said,

it is working. In order for us all to work together and make things

happen, we have to sit down and try to get creative in the language

that we do not hurt anybody. We have to get creative as thinkers

and put thought into what we are talking about; thought into talking for the fish; talking for the animals; talking for the resource.

How do we all talk and protect them at the same time and find

a balance out there, with all the people that are moving into our

country?

We will work with the local government, the planners, and all.

We have big water problems throughout our country and we have

to address these very important things. Our tribes stand ready to

do that, sir.

We want to thank you and the committee, especially you, Senator, for being our person that always cares about Indian treaties

and Indian rights and our people.

Thank you.

[Prepared statement of Mr. Frank appears in appendix.]

Senator INOUYE. I thank you very much, Chairman Frank.

May I call upon Chairman Patt.
67

STATEMENT OF OLNEY PATT, JR., CHAIRMAN, COLUMBIA

RIVER INTER-TRIBAL FISH COMMISSION

Mr. PATT. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, on behalf

of the Columbia River treaty tribes I would like to thank you for

this opportunity to provide testimony on the Native American Fish

and Wildlife Resource Management Act of 2004.

My name is Olney Patt, Jr. and I am the executive director of

the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, a Commission

formed by resolution of the Nez Perce Tribe, the Confederated

Tribes of Umatilla Indian Reservation, the Confederated Tribes of

the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon, and the Confederated

Tribes and Bands of the Yakima Nation, for the purpose of coordinating fishery management policy and providing technical expertise essential for the protection of the tribes’ treaty-protected fish

resources.

Both independently and through their Commission process, the

Columbia River treaty tribes have worked cooperatively and with

some success with the states and Federal agencies, as well as with

private landowners to restore populations of the shared salmon resource. The Columbia River treaty tribes see this bill as an opportunity to provide a framework for tribes to deal with specific onreservation resource management issues, as well as to provide a

national framework that can allow tribes, states and the Federal

Government to also successfully address regional management

issues of shared natural resources.

I will focus on a couple of key elements of this bill in my testimony today, and I will supplement the record with additional written testimony within a few weeks.

Since 1977, our Commission has contracted with the BIA under

the Self-Determination Act, Public Law 93–638, to provide technical expertise essential for the protection of the tribes’ treaty-protected fish resources. What we have learned during this time is

that through better regional coordination and cooperation, we can

spend more time working with state and Federal land and water

managers on developing shared resource management strategies

and less time in court.

Since the tribes formed the Commission, we have seen the development and implementation of a cooperative harvest management

plan for the Columbia River. In the late 1960’s and through the

1970’s, the tribes spent much time in court debating how the tribes

and States should share the conservation burden of the shared

salmon resource. By the late 1980’s, the tribes and States had come

up with an agreement on a plan for co-management of this resource. This plan, though currently under revision, has largely replaced the annual litigation over the conservation and harvest

management of the shared salmon resource that originates in the

Columbia River.

In the early 1980’s, we witnessed a dangerous coast-wise decline

in Chinook salmon stocks from Southeast Alaska through British

Columbia and throughout the Pacific Northwest. The need to deal

with this conservation crisis helped to push the United States and

Canada to reach an agreement on the Pacific Salmon Treaty of

1985. Under the treaty, there is now a management structure

through which the parties can share technical information and de-
68

velop strategies to deal with the management problems concerning

the shared salmon resource.

The Columbia River treaty tribes, along with the Western Washington treaty fishing tribes were significant participants in the negotiation of that treaty and continue to play a significant role in

its implementation.

Each of the examples I have outlined deal with complex multijurisdictional management issues. This bill by specifically allowing

tribes to opt in to the resource inventory and planning process recognizes the needs of the individual tribes within regions and across

the continent. This bill does not force any tribe to undertake the

resource inventory and management planning process provided in

this bill.

Undertaking a resource inventory and survey could only occur at

the request of the tribe. The development of the resource management plan would then follow at a pace set by each individual tribe.

Nor would this bill require any tribe to abandon a current management plan, co-management agreements, or any other working resource management plan. It does offer the promise of a structure

and the resources that can be utilized by the tribes at their option

in developing new plans or in revising old management plans.

I would like to note one important element in this bill. Section

202 of the bill provides a framework to increase the educational opportunities for tribal members to gain the knowledge and training

necessary to manage tribal resources. It also provides an opportunity for tribes to coordinate and cooperate with other tribes, with

universities and others as appropriate on technical and scientific

issues associated with resource management.

We see great promise in the development of tribal cooperative research units at universities across the country. Within the Columbia River Basin, the Commission, working with its members tribes,

identified a critical regional need for additional facilities to handle

genetics work associated with regional management restoration activities.

On behalf of its member tribes, the Commission entered into a

memorandum of agreement with the University of Idaho to cite

these facilities at the University’s aquaculture research facility.

Building upon that agreement and acknowledging the desire of

other tribes in the basin to participate in the opportunities offered

by our arrangement with the University, we have worked with the

University to outline a memorandum to establish a cooperative research unit that other tribes can join as well.

The formation of that tribal cooperative research unit at the University of Idaho provides several benefits. It allows the tribes to

have their own staff driving the research agenda and working on

resource issues of importance to the tribe. It offers tribal staff the

opportunity to reach out to the non-tribal community through

teaching assignments at the University. It provides a place for tribal members attending the University to take on undergraduate or

graduate degree research work.

All of this would be accomplished in a cooperative, coordinated

research forum that could include other state or Federal researchers. I would note that it is important that we ensure that the opportunities laid out for tribal students in this section of the bill, es-
69

pecially as to the development of the cooperative research unit system, are integrated with the opportunities and work of the Indian

college system.

For the reasons I have laid out in my testimony today, the Columbia River treaty tribes support the general concepts and opportunities provided in the language of the Native American Fish and

Wildlife Resource Management Act of 2004. We would welcome the

opportunity to work with you, other members of the committee,

and with your staff to fine-tune the bill to ensure that it meets the

needs of all the tribes within the United States and to ensure its

passage here in Congress.

Thank you.

[Prepared statement of Mr. Patt appears in appendix.]

Senator INOUYE. I thank you very much, Chairman Patt.

Chairman Frank and Chairman Patt, both of you have very eloquently described the successes that your commissions have had in

developing and establishing relationships with the Federal Government and the State and county governments. Does this measure do

that also, to enhance and encourage tribal commissions or tribal

governments to establish these relationships?

Chairman Frank.

Mr. FRANK. Yes; it does. We see this bill as a very important step

for the U.S. Congress to assure us that we will be managers of the

resource and enhance our ability to manage just like the States do.

We are all part of it and we work together to make that happen.

We have so many agreements in the last 30 years that I talk about

of co-management. This bill will enhance all of the agreements that

we have put together.

Senator INOUYE. Chairman Patt.

Mr. PATT. Yes; I believe so. The tribes have been major parties

to all of the decisionmaking processes in the Northwest. In many

cases, we find that we have to reestablish our place at the table

with each new process. This bill carves out a place for the tribes

to be at that table at all times.

We have been major parties, as I pointed out, to the Pacific

Salmon Treaty, United States v. Oregon, the major management

plan for the Columbia River Basin and so forth.

Senator INOUYE. So this bill, if passed, would give you a foundation of laws that would protect these relationships?

Mr. PATT. Yes.

Mr. FRANK. Yes.

Senator INOUYE. Do you believe that without tribal involvement

or tribal commission involvement in the management of resources,

the overall health of the resources will suffer? Is this something

that just the Federal Government can do?

Mr. PATT. No; I believe because of the nature of the Federal Government personnel in the region, it is often necessary to reeducate

new people who are coming in, say, for instance in the Fish and

Wildlife Service, NOAA and all of the various Government agencies

we work with; the Forest Service, BLM, as to treaty rights and to

educate them on existing agreements. Often when these Federal officials are well educated on the tribes’ role in the regional management process, they are reassigned. So this is kind of an ongoing

process.
70

Senator INOUYE. Chairman Frank, this measure calls for programs such as seafood marketing programs. Why do you think that

these programs would provide assistance of value to tribes?

Mr. FRANK. I think that it will give us an opportunity to put our

marketing schemes forward with the Federal Government. Marketing right now with Indian tribes in the Northwest and our fishery

is at about the lowest level that I can think of right now. No one

wants to buy our salmon. There is so much salmon out there now.

They call it Atlantic salmon. They are penned salmon. We Indian

tribes in the Northwest, we are catching Pacific salmon. They are

wild. So we do not have a market for that. This will give us an opportunity to expand our market into the Federal system and start

supplying, maybe working with the Army or whoever it might be.

It is a great opportunity for us.

Senator INOUYE. In my opening statement, I referred to an article that appeared in the Washington Post about the counting of

salmon by using the hatchery-bred salmon as part of the count.

What do you think about that?

Mr. PATT. We have not had a chance to look at the full proposal

of the Federal Government. I have only just read the article myself.

What it represents to us is maybe another changing of the rules.

We have been dealing with NOAA Fisheries and the Fish and

Wildlife Service extensively on different listed species, from bull

trout to salmon and steelhead stocks. It seems to me that this is

kind of an all-or-nothing approach. We have struggled with NOAA

Fisheries and the Fish and Wildlife Service in our efforts to restore

salmon, using appropriate stocks and the wise use of artificial production. We have been hamstrung at every turn by the scientific

certainty that they are demanding, such as the hatchery genetic

management plans that are necessary in order for us to implement

any artificial production measure.

This seems to turn that whole rule clear around to where there

is going to be no distinction between wild and hatchery-reared fish.

So there are many, many facets of this, one of which is a bill by

Norm Dicks to mark all hatchery-bred fish at federally funded

hatcheries. If those are going to be part of the listed species, there

is going to be some considerable discussion about that.

Mr. FRANK. Senator.

Senator INOUYE. Chairman Frank.

Mr. FRANK. If I could comment. They have a new rule that they

are trying to put together. They have to be very careful what they

are doing. I mean very careful because the wild salmon in the Pacific Northwest are still wild. If the rule says everything is going

to be hatchery, then there will not be any in-stream flows; there

will not be any timber, fish and wildlife agreements in the Northwest to grow trees and have shade along the streams and the temperature of the water and the gravel in the streams; debris in the

stream, logjams.

They have to be very careful what direction they are going when

they talk about wild salmon and artificial salmon. This is very dangerous ground. It better be well thought out when they do something like that, because we have a lot of agreements in the Northwest with our neighbors, and working together and trying to find

a balance on wild and artificial. We have hatchery reform that has
71

been taking place in our country. It is very serious. The Federal

Government is involved in that, NOAA, all of us, the State of

Washington and all of our tribes.

So we feel that we are going forward. We are taking steps to

make the hatcheries reform to wild and how they can work together in our country.

Senator INOUYE. In other words, do you believe that if this new

rule is put into effect without consultation with tribal governments

and commissions, it may place the wild salmon in jeopardy?

Mr. PATT. As I said, I have not had a chance to look at it, but

yes, I believe so. I believe just as Mr. Frank has stated, that it will

probably loosen up rules. Right now we have a major issue in the

Columbia Basin on summer spill. I think this may be geared toward that as the NOAA Fisheries and the Bonneville Power Administration has canceled a couple of meetings with us in the last

two weeks. Those meetings were intended to bring this proposal to

us on summer spill. I suppose this would be a way around that.

Senator INOUYE. May I request that both your commissions look

into this matter and share with us your thoughts on this?

Mr. PATT. Yes.

Mr. FRANK. Yes; we will, absolutely.

Senator INOUYE. Senator Smith.

STATEMENT OF HON. GORDON SMITH, U.S. SENATOR FROM

OREGON

Senator SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to be

with you today and express my support for the Native American

Fish and Wildlife Resources Management Act. I have a longer

opening statement. In the interest of time, I will put it in the

record.

[Prepared statement of Senator Smith appears in appendix.]

Senator SMITH. I believe that what underpins this act is the natural stewardship Native Americans feel to the environment. Their

actions are borne out by a millennia of history in managing their

lands and their resources. I think no matter what the law is, their

conduct will be above and beyond that law because that is part of

their culture and their history that is unchangeable.

I would—as one familiar with many of the issues Mr. Frank and

Mr. Patt are discussing here—like to welcome them both as Northwesterners. Mr. Patt is a neighbor in Warm Springs, OR. I would

express at least my view that in terms of hatchery fish, the management of hatcheries needs to be done very carefully and to the

highest of standards. If done so, it can be done in a way that is

consistent with preserving wild fish.

It is my understanding that the highest scientific practices require that hatchery fish come from the eggs and the milt of last

year’s wild fish. I have not heard scientists describe a genetic difference between those fish 1 generation or 1 year removed from the

other as being genetically inferior or somehow inappropriate to be

in the ocean or in our rivers, but some believe that they are. I do

not think it is an either/or equation. I think we can have both if

it is done carefully and to high scientific standards.

As to the whole issue of spill, I hope what is being done is attention being given to hard data as to what provides the greatest sur-
72

vivability, improves the survival of the fish that are migrating to

the ocean. I have been shown data that suggests that spilling them

actually heightens their mortality. More of them have gas bubble

disease. They float, they get picked off, they are made more vulnerable than by some of the other means to get them through or past

the dams, which at the same time can produce electricity.

The only thing I am saying is if you save more fish by running

the dams and spilling less, and you could also create electricity, it

seems to me that reasonable people and courts looking at facts can

experiment to find out what the truth is. I think everyone approaching this issue needs to have as their objective saving fish

and producing the energy that we desperately need to improve economic opportunity in Washington, Oregon, and Idaho, where we

have some of the highest unemployment rates in the country. That

rate does not come down if energy production fails to go up, or if

energy prices remain high.

So what I am being told is there is hard data, objective science

which suggests you can produce energy and save more fish. I think

that is a worthy thing to do. It speaks for itself. No one, and myself

among them, wants to stop spilling if it means we destroy a species. I just simply want to know what the facts are. I think that

is what I am hearing from many of you, along with a word of caution. Be careful. I share that.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much, Senator Smith.

Mr. FRANK. Senator.

Senator INOUYE. Yes; Chairman Frank.

Mr. FRANK. I would just add to that, Senator Gordon Smith from

Pendleton, OR. I am proud of what has taken place with all the

tribes in Oregon. I have been down to visit them and working with

the farmers and working with the state, as well as within the reservation or adjoining the reservation. You have a lot of water flowing now, and working together is very positive.

Now, the hatcheries, I would hope that the United States would

give very long thought about hatcheries reform or hatchery rule or

whatever they are talking about, because we in the Northwest, all

of us, we are talking about the next 100 years. We are not talking

about a quick fix like a rule. We are talking about getting the people and the public behind everything that we are doing as far as

hatchery reform, and try to find that balance, as our Senator from

Oregon was talking about, and to have time to do that.

Now, I hope if a rule comes out that they give a lot of thought

to hatchery and wild salmon.

Senator SMITH. Absolutely.

Mr. PATT. Senator Smith, we also have been striving to come up

with some good numbers on the curtailment of summer spill. One

of the big hurdles in doing that is BPA’s regional battle cry of $77

million to save 24 fish. That has not helped the effort at all. However, we are working with NOAA Fisheries and we think we are

coming closer to some agreement on the juvenile mortalities.

I was just told that our staff will be meeting with your staff tomorrow morning to go over some of those numbers.

Senator SMITH. We look forward to that.
73

Senator INOUYE. I thank you very much, Chairman Frank and

Chairman Patt.

Our next panel, the executive director of 1854 Authority of Duluth, MN, Sonny Myers; the attorney-policy analyst of the Great

Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission of Odanah, WI, James

Zorn; the executive director of the Native American Fish and Wildlife Society of Broomfield, CO, Ira New Breast.

Mr. Myers.

STATEMENT OF SONNY MYERS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 1854

AUTHORITY

Mr. MYERS. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my name is Sonny Myers. I am the executive director of the

1854 Authority. What we are is we are an intertribal natural resource management organization that implements the off-reservation hunting, fishing and gathering rights of the Grand Portage

and the Bois Forte Bands of the Lake Superior Chippewa in the

area that was ceded in the Treaty of 1854. So we are up in northeastern Minnesota.

I would like to thank the committee for the opportunity to comment on this important piece of legislation. I consider it an honor

to be here today. I would also like to make a special note to the

committee staff who have been working very hard, been very active

in gathering actual tribal input. It seems like the current draft is

a direct reflection of what the tribes have been trying to bring

forth. And also from my perspective, their understanding of the

real-world political processes, how these things actually work and

moving these things along, has been very, very helpful because I

am a little bit new at this process.

As everyone in this room is aware, great things have been happening in Indian country relating to tribes’ ability to oversee its

own members and also to oversee its own reserve resources; 15

years ago, I am speaking from Minnesota, at least from our perspective, a Band member would have been arrested and actually

was arrested for moose hunting off the reservation. Now, the right

was there, but now today we are actually at the table not only participating in the discussions, but providing valuable input into harvest quotas that are set for both the State and tribal hunters.

Ten years ago, a bi-national effort to protect the waters of Lake

Superior was brought forth. That meant every jurisdiction was at

the table, except for the tribes. Actually now today we are not only

at the table, as well as other tribal organizations, but in many

cases tribal staff are key members of working committees there.

Really, about 5 years ago, things are a little stickier in the fishery realm; there is a stigma attached to fish and Indians back

home, but the concept of cooperating on a fisheries information

gathering effort with State folks did happen, but it was a real

grudging affair. As I speak, last night and tonight members of my

staff will actually be out there working in a very cooperative,

friendly manner on gathering that type of information.

I just wanted to say that. You know, it has really been our

charge or our commission to champion the tribes’ rightful place

among the stakeholders in managing the shared resources in the

area that has been reserved in the 1854 Treaty area.
74

So indeed, great things have been happening. I wanted to make

note of that because we are very thankful for the foundations that

have been laid and the groundwork by many of the people, especially out in the Northwest, and some of my colleagues here from

Wisconsin, sort of laid the groundwork for our successes in Minnesota. But also as everyone in here is aware, there is a constant

striving or a constant effort to erode the sovereignty that the tribes

are working very hard to maintain.

Hence, we think this Native American Fish and Wildlife Resource Management Act will hopefully be a means to take or move

tribal fish and wildlife management to its rightful place.

So I just have a few comments on the proposed legislation, why

we think it is necessary and hopefully these things will be addressed and are addressed in the proposed legislation. We think it

is necessary because it expressly recognizes that Indian tribes must

have a role in managing ceded territory of fish and wildlife resources. Not only should the tribes be at the table, but as time is

telling, it is actually a benefit to have the tribes at the table when

discussing these resource issues.

Statutory acknowledgment of these treaty rights is necessary because the rights are too often subordinated to the interests of others who have no treaty rights, but have strong political influence.

Even though we are gaining ground in respect, very often and most

often we are lumped in with other special interest groups when it

comes to frameworks in which to provide comments and to be part

of the process.

Last, I just want to say that we are sensitive to the concerns of

others, the tribes are, but we must ensure that the quality and the

quantity of the fish, game and traditional plants, and the access to

them, is not diminished because of land management practices that

do not consider treaty rights. I wanted to quantify ‘‘access’’ to mean

that is both the physical access of actually getting to an access, and

also some of the methodologies. This is especially a concern for us

in our lands which are managed by the Federal Government. The

1854 Treaty encompasses both a national forest and a designated

wilderness area, so we are talking a large portion of the 1854 Treaty area where the Band members hunt, fish and gather is managed

by the Federal Government.

So last, I will just close with this legislation hopefully should not

be construed as a replacement for what is going on, but really

hopefully what it would do it really would enhance what is going

on and further the cause of establishing the tribes’ rightful place

among the stakeholders in managing these shared resources that

have been reserved.

My ancestors had the foresight to reserve those rights and we

are thankful for that. We are beneficiaries of some very explicit

treaty language for ceded territories, and hopefully we can have

the foresight to preserve those rights.

Again, I would like to thank the committee for the work that has

already been completed, and I really look forward to bringing this

important legislation to fruition.

Thank you.

[Prepared statement of Mr. Myers appears in appendix.]

Senator INOUYE. I thank you very much, Mr. Myers.
75

Mr. Zorn.

STATEMENT OF JAMES ZORN, ATTORNEY-POLICY ANALYST,

GREAT LAKES INDIAN FISH AND WILDLIFE COMMISSION

Mr. ZORN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Smith, other members of the committee. Again, it is a great honor to come before this

committee and talk about this important matter. As you recall, last

June 3 we had an oversight hearing where tribes and tribal organizations from around the Nation came and helped to present a

record for this committee as to what Indian tribes and their agencies are doing out there to protect natural resources and to help

tribes exercise their sovereignty over those resources.

The Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission is an

agency of 11 Chippewa tribes located in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and

Michigan. All of those tribes have signed treaties with the United

States whereby they ceded a large section of land in those areas,

and in those treaties they specifically reserved the right to continue

to hunt, fish and gather—in essence to continue their life-ways on

the lands that were ceded.

The tribes’ rights include the right to regulate their own members and to play a role in the management of those natural resources that are subject to the rights, as well as in protecting the

habitats and ecosystems that support the resources that are harvested.

So that is our perspective here today. We offer our written testimony. We will let that go in the record and we will just offer some

thoughts now orally to highlight what is in the testimony, and we

hope that our June 3 testimony also is brought into this record, or

at least considered.

We are extremely grateful to the committee and the committee

staff, as well as to the tribes from around the Nation and their

staff, for the hard work that has gone into developing this bill. It

is very clear that this committee listened very carefully to the

tribes, not only on June 3, but about 10 or 12 years ago when a

previous version of this bill was being kicked around and being

considered. There is great sensitivity by this committee to the

needs in Indian country and this bill reflects that.

What this bill, in our view, is really about is identifying the Federal role to support and assist the tribes as they play their proper

role in natural resource management particulary within tribal communities, where the tribal governments have the most important

role to play, as well as with other tribes, perhaps with whom they

share use areas like in our situation with the ceded territories and

in the Northwest. I think we often forget that the term ‘‘co-management’’ also includes management among the tribes. This is a very

important aspect that the bill properly recognizes.

And, ultimately, the proper rule with other governments and

with the larger community, beyond the tribal community, because

these natural resources are shared by everyone. The tribes want to

play their role in protecting the natural resources and in sustainable populations of natural resources for generations to come, not

just for them, but for their neighbors.

As I understand this bill and as I understand how it is drafted,

the tribes are not asking for any rights or responsibilities that they
76

do not already have. Each tribe has the rights that it has, and

those rights simply are what they are. The bill then is really, in

our view, a tool to help the tribes realize and achieve their rights

as governments to be involved in natural resource management activities, both on the reservation and off the reservation where existing tribal rights and responsibilities attach.

Senator Inouye, to use a phrase that was used many years ago

in Wisconsin, we view this bill as Congress helping ‘‘cast the light,’’

so to speak, on the Federal Government’s proper role, particularly

the executive branch’s proper role, in honoring and supporting tribal rights and management responsibilities both on and off the reservation, in fulfilling the purposes of the Self-Determination Act to

get the funds and the responsibilities for running those programs

down to the tribes themselves, and not to a Federal bureaucracy,

and to ensure that wherever Federal authority is carried out, by

whatever Federal agency, those agencies and that authority is carried out in a way that does not infringe upon the tribes’ rights, and

in fact honors them and helps support them.

This really is not just about tribes. It is about the Nation as a

whole. As we recently found out in a strategic planning process

with the Fish and Wildlife Service’s Fisheries Program, partners

and stakeholders from around the Nation—from the Federal Government, State governments, non-governmental organizations and

tribes—got together and talked about the crises that are facing this

Nation’s natural resources, particularly aquatic habitats. There is

a call now for a national aquatic habitat initiative because of common problems faced around the country, particularly with invasive

species, habitat loss and so on.

In that strategic planning process, there was the practical, if not

legal, recognition that the tribes need to be there; that the job cannot be done without tribes. Tribes control a great deal of land and

resources on the reservation. And, they play a great role where

they have ceded territory rights in ensuring the sustainability of

resources. The partners uniformly recognized that tribes need to be

at the table if this Nation is to succeed in passing on the legacy

of natural resources that we inherited, if not a better one.

With those background comments, we have a few particular comments on the bill’s provisions. I will just highlight them briefly.

First of all, we hope the bill does not result in the creation of a new

bureaucracy within the Department of the Interior. We just hope

that the committee assesses that. We understand that there is a

dialog between tribes and the committee, and there will be a dialog

with the Interior Department as this bill moves forward. This is

just something we want to keep in mind—The purpose of the bill

is to get the funds and responsibilities out to the tribes. We should

be careful not to keep them within the Federal agencyif a tribal

natural resources management program is created within Interior.

Second, we understand there may be some prospective issues

with the bill that involve the dilemma that Federal agencies face.

We call it the dual mandate dilemma, where Congress legislates

particular responsibilities for an agency, such as for the Forest

Service with national forests, saying this is your job. The statute

says this is what the agency must do. Yet there is the separate

stovepipe of obligations of each agency with respect to the tribes’
77

reserved treaty rights, where that agency must honor those rights,

and must carry out its responsibility and authority under the other

specific act in a way that is consistent with those rights.

It is not a matter of taking over the Federal lands from a tribal

perspective, especially the lands off the reservation. It is a matter

of having the Federal agency recognize tribal rights, making sure

those rights are implemented, and making sure the Federal land

is managed in a way that does not infringe upon those rights and

supports the habitats of the natural resources that are subject to

the rights. So we do not think that this is a big problem and we

offer our experience with the Forest Service and with the National

Park Service over the last 10 to 15 years as examples of how things

might work out.

In terms of how the Self-Determination Act funding might fit in

that circumstance, our agreement with the Forest Service, for example, is that the Forest Service will recognize and assist the

tribes in implementing their treaty gathering rights. Yet when it

comes time to getting positions on our staff to deal with the Forest

Service, the Forest Service will say—‘‘we do not have the funds; we

are not authorized to give you funds.’’ In fact, we were turned to

the part of the Forest Service called State and Private Forestry to

look for those funds. So our hope is that through this act we can

then say, when we have our arrangements set, that the Self-Determination Act can help give us our infrastructure on the tribal side

that we need to help implement that agreement.

Second, in terms of the natural resource management planning

and other requirements of the act, we certainly hope that the act

is not intended to require the tribes to change their natural resource management traditions or methods, or to change or alter

their existing management plans, to either conform to the bill’s requirements as a prerequisite for the exercise of retained tribal sovereign prerogatives to carry out those natural resource management activities or as a prerequisite for Self-Determination Act

funding or technical assistance. Let’s make sure we do not slide

backwards through this bill. Let’s make sure that we use the foundation we have, move forward, and bring more funds and more

tribes into the assistance that the Federal Government should be

providing.

Finally, I know that there are portions of the bill that need to

be developed, in particular with respect to health issues and the

idea that ‘‘what good are these natural resources if they are not

safe for tribal members to consume.’’ The Commission offers its assistance to help develop those provisions. It could be somewhat

complex, given that this calls into question perhaps the FDA-type

responsibilities about the safe handling and processing of foods and

so on. But it also carries issues like Mr. Frank identified, such as

the idea of wholesome tribal wild rice harvested from nature. The

rice is good; it is clean. It is probably about $10 more a pound than

California-grown paddy rice, which might be genetically modified,

and tribes are at a tremendous competitive disadvantage because

of that type of situation. So perhaps this bill could help.

With those comments, we submit our written testimony for the

record. We continue to engage in the dialog with the staff and the
78

other tribes, and we certainly thank the committee for its attention

to this matter.

[Prepared statement of Mr. Zorn appears in appendix.]

Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much, Mr. Zorn.

Mr. New Breast.

STATEMENT OF IRA NEW BREAST, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

NATIVE AMERICAN FISH AND WILDLIFE SOCIETY

Mr. NEW BREAST. Hello, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for this honor

and opportunity for the Society to speak before the committee

today.

We would like to first again express our gratitude for the committee’s interest and hard work, particularly the staff, and also recognize the dedication of the working group that has put together

much of the language that encompasses the bill.

Our statements are fairly short. The Society, of course, is a national nonprofit organization that encompasses assisting tribes for

informational networking, education and scientific purposes. Ours

is not necessarily an advocacy organization, but we do have short

comments that we would like to put into the record.

The bill that we are discussing here today obviously does face a

number of challenges, the scope of which is vital in every aspect

that is contained within the language of the bill, but it is broad.

Because it is broad, there are many challenges that arise with the

overall future and success of the bill. We have confidence in the

working group that is addressing these things, but we would like

to encourage that all concerned recall the original theme of the bill

from the 1993 history to the recent Portland 2003 January discussions, is to address fundamental fish and wildlife conservation

management. So in the bill, quite possibly explore avenues to narrow the focus of the bill, to encompass that theme and keep it in

mind. Of course, that is as we discuss and try to consider what

challenges may face the bill for the future.

Ultimately, the success of the bill, of this endeavor, will be measured by the eventual funding for this language of the bill. In particular, the achievement of this will be in the term of permanent

funding. We understand the parameters that are affecting the

strategies in the withholding of identifying funding for this bill,

and hope for the future as we go forward that this may be realized

in the future.

As an example of what the funding might look like, for over more

than 500 Federally recognized tribes, and to realize the intent of

the bill and proceed productively, the numbers that will have to be

realized to provide base funding for tribes will have to be in the

hundreds of millions. We realize this may be sometime in the future. But that keeps in mind from an individual standpoint as a

former Director of the Blackfeet Fish and Wildlife Department, we

remember this bill, and remember what the hopes that it had entailed basically to provide tribes with the funding capability to

manage their fish and wildlife programs, their resource. So we encourage the committee and the working group as they move along

to keep that in mind as we move along.

Certainly, the Society supports the tribes in their efforts to realize this type of legislation, and particularly because we are so
79

strong as an informational networking group, we encourage the use

of the Society to disseminate some of the information to the tribes.

I would like to point out that many tribes do not want organizations. They are in some respects independent, and so find it difficult at times to have their voice heard in different forums. So

they look to the Society to perhaps provide that gap of information.

So when we are talking about strategies in the development of

this bill, and how we are incorporating all of the tribes, it would

be in their interest to be able to at least have the benefit of understanding what those strategies are, rather than seeing the end

product of what those strategies were trying to achieve, knowing

that the overall effort is one for the benefit of all the tribes in their

fish and wildlife interests.

That concludes the Society’s comments for today.

Thank you.

[Prepared statement of Mr. New Breast appears in appendix.]

Senator INOUYE. I thank you very much.

All of you have suggested that this measure provides a statutory

recognition of treaty rights. In essence, this bill does not create any

further rights for Indian tribes. However, it will provide funds that

would make it possible to implement these rights. Is this bill necessary to do that? Or can you just carry on the way you are now?

Mr. MYERS. I can take a shot at that. I think it is necessary.

There is really limited amount of money, at least in our perspective; I should not say our perspective, the tribal perspective; there

are not a lot of funds available to actually do work. We are not

looking to create new levels of bureaucracy or new programs or

whatever. But the funds are limited on a major scale.

That is one of the reasons, I guess every time I come out here

I may sound like a broken record, but I champion the Circle of

Flight program, and on the grand scale it is relatively meager dollars, what it does on the ground is really allows the tribes to become a player out there in the ceded territories. We cooperate with

the Federal Government. We cooperative with country governments, state governments. There are private organizations like

Ducks Unlimited, as well as individuals who are just interested in

a certain resource.

So I guess hopefully what this bill would do would maybe expand

some of those areas where funding may become available. Even

that one sort of gets put on the cutting floor every year. But again,

on the grand scale, a meager amount of dollars, but on the ground

where the tribes are actually working, it has just done amazing

things for us.

Senator INOUYE. So you consider the important element to be

funding?

Mr. MYERS. Certainly a part of it. We could have the statutory

framework to say, yes, we are tribes and we have the rights out

there, and that is all fine and dandy, which helps, but it is certainly nice to have some funds available to actually participate in

those processes. I do not think anyone is looking for expanded programs, but it would really be nice to have some dollars to hit the

ground and work on the resources with.

Senator INOUYE. Mr. Zorn.
80

Mr. ZORN. To endorse and to add to what Mr. Myers said, the

bill certainly is necessary from the perspective of Congress directing Federal agencies to recognize the Federal Government’s trust

and treaty obligations. We often hear from agencies that ‘‘oh, it is

not within our organic statute,’’ say the Army Corps of Engineers

about the issuance of 404 permits, ‘‘it is not within our statutes

here to look at tribes and their treaty rights as anything else other

than a public interest-type criteria.’’ The Corps needs to recognize

that the Federal Government does have unique obligations towards

tribes. In that sense, this bill would be very necessary and very

helpful to get those other agencies to recognize and implement the

Federal Government’s trust and treaty obligations.

Then the bill is also necessary in the context of the larger picture

forboth congress and executive branch in terms of the standing of

tribal natural resource management programs, that they are a congressionally recognized, important aspect of tribal sovereignty and

that they should get the attention they deserve, hopefully within

Interior as well as within other agencies. And the bill would allow

the tribes and others to do the battle for the budget. We can no

longer hear that, well, natural resources are over here; no they are

here; they are center stage; they are part and parcel of tribal sovereignty and a very important part. So in that sense, the bill is

very necessary.

Will the tribes continue, as Senator Smith said, to do what they

have done for millennia without this bill? They certainly will. Will

this bill help them do a better job and help this Nation do a better

job and get better results for this Nation’s natural resources? This

bill will certainly help and is necessary.

Senator INOUYE. Mr. Zorn, in your written testimony, you spoke

of the dual management dilemma. Can you give us an example of

that?

Mr. ZORN. For example, the national forests, as Mr. Myers said.

They are part of the public land-base off the reservations where the

tribes may exercise their treaty-reserved hunting, fishing, and

gathering rights. The tribes went to the national forest and said,

look, we think we can gather some wild plants here for medicinal,

cultural and other purposes like we have always done, including

wild rice. You would face potentially the argument that the National Forest Management Act, the Four Corners statute of that

agency, did not say anything about the Forest Service recognizing

and implementing these rights and honoring these rights. It provided no guidance to the agency as to how the Forest Service

should exercise its Federal management responsibility over those

lands to make sure those tribal rights were indeed honored.

So we sometimes will face the issue where the agency will say,

‘‘we have this job to do that Congress gave us, but Congress has

provided us no guidance as to that other stovepipe of the trust and

treaty obligations.’’

Senator INOUYE. Mr. New Breast, how do you view this bill as

assisting your organization?

Mr. NEW BREAST. One of the mechanisms of assistance that this

bill would do in regard to creating the type of base funding that

is needed throughout Indian country is raise capacity for all aspects of the infrastructure of an organization, whether they are
81

tribal fish and wildlife or they are broader Indian organizations. In

that, they raise the capacity. They also inherently imbue far more

capability to productively interact on a cooperative basis, whether

it is collaboration that translates into cooperative agreements,

memoranda of agreements.

For instance, from personal experience, the Blackfeet Tribe got

themselves involved with an international cooperative agreement

which dealt with the Canadian Government, provincial and Federal; dealt with Canadian tribes; and dealt with the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service. The national parks were also involved in this

agreement. It all had to do with recovering the endangered bull

trout in the St. Mary drainage of Montana. Through that cooperative effort, there existed very little funds. But through the united

effort, much work has been able to be done. On a scientific basis,

we were able to put together all of our information in one area so

that we could effectively address that resource. So it continues to

be a success up in Montana, and that is one example.

The Acoma of New Mexico worked very cooperatively with both

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Federal agency law enforcement, as well as the New Mexican entities. These type of cooperative efforts serve only to be enhanced. What we face today is nationally, regardless of who the entity is that is managing the fish

and wildlife, is a steady decrease in the interest in the viability of

our fish and wildlife resource. So tribes just look to try and play

their part in that overall role of united effort to see the best interests of fish and wildlife.

So that is how I see the priorities being directed as an endeavor

for not only the tribes, but as they outreach to other entities as

well.

Senator INOUYE. Senator Smith.

Senator SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As I have listened to the testimony, it does seem to me that this

bill is important because it gives the tribes an authoritative voice,

though not a veto, in the formulation of Federal natural resource

policy. I think that that is an authoritative voice that is long overdue in being heard on a government-to-government basis.

So I had intended in my opening statement to express support

for the Native American Fish and Wildlife Resources Management

Act of 2004, and my able assistant has pointed out to me I expressed support for the current statute, the National Indian Forest

Resource Management Act. So for the record, I correct that and

simply conclude my part in the hearing today by saying I hope that

this new Act will further add to the discussion of self-determination

and self-governance of Native Americans.

Thank you, sir.

Senator INOUYE. I thank you very much.

This bill may have an impact upon every tribe in this Nation.

Are there any exceptions that might be anticipated? Are your problems the same as the problems of the Northwest or the Southeast?

Mr. ZORN. If I may, Mr. Chairman.

Senator INOUYE. Sure.

Mr. ZORN. The tribes’ situation with natural resource management and natural resource management activities are very similar,

but each tribe has its own bundle of rights, responsibilities and
82

sovereign prerogatives. As we know, a tribe retains that authority

which they have not voluntarily relinquished, or Congress in the

exercise of its plenary power has not taken away. Each treaty

needs to be looked at in its own particular circumstance, own particular terms, own particular historical examination of what that

treaty was intended to mean and what it actually does mean.

So in that sense, there certainly are individual tribal needs that

may be different from tribe to tribe. There certainly are different

regional needs. I do think that that is one thing that we must pay

attention to in this bill, that as you try to paint with as broad a

stroke as possible to handle some of these very similar problems,

that you make sure that no tribe’s individual sovereign prerogatives are left out of the picture here in some way. I think some care

is going to have to be given to that.

Mr. NEW BREAST. Mr. Chairman, just as we often see that good

science provides the answer to many difficult questions, just as I

mentioned earlier, the topic of fundamental fish and wildlife conservation management being the theme to direct that, despite the

differences, if you will, inherent differences of tribes in regard to

what their cultural situation is, their relationship to the resident

habitat and the resources, that general theme will provide the

guidance, the beacon that needs to come through and reach the

needs of the tribes.

Senator INOUYE. I thank you, gentleman, very much for your contributions. May I assure everyone here that all of your prepared

statements will be made part of the record.

And before I forget, the record will be kept open until May 31,

so if you wish to make addendums or corrections, please feel free

to do so.

Our final panel consists of the first chief of Stevens, Stevens Village, AK, Randy Mayo, accompanied by the Natural Resource and

Environmental Program director of Stevens Village, Dewey

Schwalenberg; and the director of the Business and Sustainable

Development Central Council Tlingit and Haida Tribes of Alaska,

Juneau, AK, Gordon Jackson; and the president of the Inter-Tribal

Bison Cooperative, Rapid City, SD, Ervin Carlson, accompanied by

the Inter-Tribal Bison Cooperative of Rapid City, Fred Dubray.

Mr. Mayo.

STATEMENT OF RANDY MAYO, FIRST CHIEF OF STEVENS

VILLAGE, AK, ACCOMPANIED BY DEWEY SCHWALENBERG, NATURAL RESOURCE/ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM

DIRECTOR

Mr. MAYO. Thank you, Chairman Inouye, members of the committee, honored guests, for this opportunity to testify before you

here in the oversight hearing on S. 2301, a discussion draft bill

that would improve the management of Native American fish and

wildlife and gathering, and for other purposes.

I am honored by this invitation to present oral testimony to the

committee. Our written testimony has already been submitted by

our tribal natural resource director, Dewey Schwalenberg, seated

here to my left.

I speak today in support of this bill and on behalf of my 215 tribal members, and for the other community residents of Stevens Vil-
83

lage, who would stand to benefit from the resource management

and protection that this bill will provide to my community.

Stevens Village is located 90 air miles north of Fairbanks on the

north bank of the Yukon River. There are 30 households in the village and 90 residents. Most are tribal members and shareholders

in the Dinyee Native Village Corporation. I am the vice president

of the Dinyee Corporation. The remainder of the tribal members reside in Fairbanks or other communities because they need to have

work, which is difficult to find in the village.

Many of our members would like to live in the village and most

do use fish and wildlife and forestry resources from our traditional

lands during certain seasons of the year. There are no roads to Stevens Village. Transportation is by small plane, by boat up the

Yukon River from the Yukon River Bridge on the Dalton Highway,

27 miles downstream from the village, or by snow machine or dog

sled to the bridge in the winter. Barges come up the river twice a

year to deliver fuel and construction materials. Air freight for personal goods to the village is 45 cents per pound. None of the houses

have sewer and water, but we do have treated water and sewer to

the school and water plant.

The school has 13 students from preschool to 12th grade. The

Council is the largest employer in the village and we have seven

full-time workers and 12 to 15 seasonal workers. The tribal lands

and natural resources program employs most of our workers for

fisheries, wildlife, forestry and environmental projects. Without the

resource program, the community would have little employment.

Funding for these programs has been challenging to maintain.

Periodic grants have kept the program going for the past six years,

but permanent funding is necessary soon or we will lose this portion of our economy.

Our people are very much dependent upon the salmon that

comes up-river in the summer and on moose that live around the

village. The moose population is at a very low level and we have

taken steps to begin raising buffalo to supplement our meat supply.

To provide the technical comments on this bill, I will ask Mr.

Schwalenberg to use the rest of our time to highlight our technical

testimony.

Thank you.

[Prepared statement of Mr. Mayo appears in appendix.]

Senator INOUYE. Mr. Schwalenberg.

Mr. SCHWALENBERG. Thank you, Chief Mayo, and thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Our written testimony will explain what type of programs that

the tribe up in the Yukon River area actually undertakes. What I

would like to talk a little about this morning is the genesis of

where the tribal authority for managing resources comes from in

Alaska.

As you know, in the bill there is a title III section on Alaska Native Fish and Wildlife Programs, and I think a lot of people do not

understand that each tribe in Alaska does have a constitution. The

tribal government in Stevens Village’s constitution was passed in

1939 and approved by the Secretary of Interior, and it was amended in 1990. Under the provisions of the constitution, we see that

one of the critical responsibilities of tribal government is manage-
84

ment of natural resources for and on behalf of the benefit of its people. So that is where the tribe assumes is authority to manage resources.

Stevens Village is also a government in the town site and the

only government, only municipal government, and therefore has responsibilities of managing resources and the well-being of its people in pretty much about 3,000 acres of land.

So what type of management program the Stevens Village Council has put together has been one of managing the moose populations, wildlife, fisheries, environmental testing of its waters and

its resources, and above all putting together employment opportunities for its people.

So we serve as program director and managers to train local people in how to conduct research technician activities, how to collect

traditional harvest data. We work cooperatively with the State of

Alaska Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service refuge program. We work cooperatively on aerial moose

surveys. We did a northern pike radiotelemetry project for about 6

years that indicated there was negative impact on large quality

fish populations, which in turn led to the State of Alaska Board of

Fish making some regulatory changes that benefitted the tribes, its

members and also the State residents.

We do the same thing with the Subsistence Board for moose

hunting regulations and the bear hunting regulations that the tribal government determined were necessary through our research,

were taken to the Board of Subsistence. The Board of Subsistence

passed those regulations.

So the tribes in Alaska are not attempting to develop a brand

new system. They are using the existing system out there that protects the resources. What we are asking for in this bill is the fact

that the Federal Government recognize the contribution that the

tribal governments are making and recognize the struggle that

these tribal governments in Alaska are making, and hopefully we

will be able to find some permanent funding so that these programs would be able to become more institutionalized in a cooperative manner with State and Federal.

But in conclusion, what I would like to do is just tell you one

quick anecdote an elder in the village told me when I questioned

when I first showed up there 12 years ago. I questioned the management, whether people knew professional management, et cetera.

I really did not know. I was naive. So one of the elders told me

about an experience. He was up one of the tributary rivers in the

late fall. The water levels had receded and there was a beaver dam

with a beaver pool. He said, behind the beaver pool all the whitefish and the pike were trapped in that beaver pool. I said, well,

what did you do? And he said, well, I opened it up so that they

could get out.

So people historically have known how to manage their resources. He opened that beaver dam up so those whitefish could get

back to the main stem of the Yukon River and survive the winter,

because back in the shallow waters of a beaver pond they are going

to freeze to death over winter.

It is just one of these anecdotes after another that indicate to me

that tribes and the Native people of Alaska have always partici-
85

pated in resource management. It was a traditional sense of management, and that is what we have done in our program. We have

incorporated those traditional values and management practices

into our scientific programs, and that is why we feel they are so

successful.

So we are very supportive of this bill. One technical question I

brought up in S. 2105 is the term ‘‘Alaska Native fish and wildlife

organizations.’’ I noticed in our attempt to bring this bill before

you, we have put Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act and we

have put the Indian Self-Determination Act provisions together in

the title III Alaskan section, so that all of those provisions together

make this portion of the Act. I did notice one thing in section five

where it says, the term ‘‘Alaska Native fish and wildlife organization means commission authority or other entity chartered for the

primary purpose.’’ We believe strongly in the Indian self-determination that that should read, ‘‘authority or other entity chartered by one or more tribes for the primary purpose.’’

If we do not keep the tribes involved in this explicitly, we are

going to find out that the tribes will end up as normal not receiving

any of the benefits of this act. The tribes can cooperate with their

village corporations and regional corporations to conduct management activities, but we would like to see that tribal language in

this bill.

Thank you very much.

[Prepared statement of Mr. Schwalenberg appears in appendix.]

Senator INOUYE. I thank you, sir.

Mr. Jackson.

STATEMENT OF GORDON JACKSON, DIRECTOR, BUSINESS

AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT, CENTRAL COUNCIL

TLINGIT AND HAIDA TRIBES OF ALASKA

Mr. JACKSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

My name is Gordon Jackson. I am the director of business and

Sustainable Development for the Central Council of Tlingit and

Haida Indians of Alaska, with 24,000 members located throughout

the Pacific Northwest.

I also provide staff support to the Southeast Alaska Inter-Tribal

Fish and Wildlife Commission. I am also the Chairman of the

Board of Kake Travel Corporation.

We have provided written testimony and rather than read it, I

am just going to provide some information in supplement for the

record. I think that a lot of folks that talked about the bill, I really

appreciate the opportunity to be part of this. I have been in Portland and have spoken to various members of the group behind me

by e-mail or by teleconference. I think that the bill has come a long

ways. It is getting better every time a draft is developed. I think

that by the time it gets through the whole process, I think it is

going to be a very good piece of legislation.

As the director of business and sustainable development in

southeast Alaska, I find that job relatively tough. Over the last several years, we have developed economic summits in several communities in southeast Alaska from Prince of Wales Island to Angoon

and Hoonah. We find a number of things relating to the needs of

the communities almost the same. Some of the items that have
86

been developed over the last several years is that we find that the

logging economy is getting smaller and smaller. As the Native corporations complete the harvesting of their land, we have lost thousands of jobs in village Alaska. That is in contrast to the big boom

of the 1990’s. Hundreds of people are out of work in the communities relating to logging.

In addition to the downturn of the logging economy, there is a

huge downturn in the fishing industry that continues in villages

today with the loss of processors and markets, primarily due to the

influx of farmed salmon throughout the world. Farmed salmon has

taken over the market for wild salmon, and I think it has been devastating throughout the Pacific Northwest.

There has been little penetration of tourism in rural communities

in southeast Alaska, although there is going to be almost 900,000

off-loaded in Juneau, relatively little of them trickle in to the

smaller communities of southeast Alaska. I think that the prospects of getting any kind of those jobs are really small.

So the unemployment rate in smaller village Alaska is very high.

The prospects for any kinds of huge economic development activity

is very small.

Because of the decline in the fishing community and the commercial fishing in our communities, and the need to address subsistence consistently in southeast Alaska, we in the Central Council

developed a southeast Alaska Inter-Tribal Fish and Wildlife Commission. We wanted to address subsistence and commercial fishing.

We patterned our organizational structure based on the Columbia

River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission and Northwest Indian Fish

Commission. All of our members joined this Commission by resolution, and have made this organization very strong and have upheld

our responsibilities to address these many things.

We have done a number of things over the last couple of years

since the organization was organized. We have worked cooperatively with many organizations, including the Migratory Bird Council. Several years ago, the Migratory Bird Treaty organized a cooperative body that is composed of all of the regional village and regional tribal organizations, and the state and Federal Government.

You have a great big cooperative body that figures out the seasons

for taking of migratory birds up and down the Pacific Northwest

and Alaska.

We have addressed through cooperative associations the Marine

Mammal Act, where members of the body of the association in

Alaska addresses marine mammals up and down the coast of Alaska. We have been monitoring the Pacific Salmon Treaty. Lots of

our fish originate from the Great Columbia River Basin. Earlier

today you heard folks talking about spill over the Columbia River.

That affects the fish for the tribes in Oregon and Washington. It

also affects the return of the Chinook salmon in southeast Alaska,

which come in great numbers and used to come in millions of numbers throughout the coast of southeast Alaska. Whatever happens

on the Columbia River negatively also negatively affects the people

in southeast Alaska.

We have worked to develop a plan to work cooperatively with the

State of Alaska. We have been monitoring the cruise ships that go

through southeast Alaska that have been known to dump gray
87

water throughout the interior surfaces of southeast Alaska that affect not only the wild salmon, but our subsistence way of life, so

we are monitoring that very carefully.

Addressing commercial fishing has been relatively rough. I grew

up in that industry. In my short lifetime, I witnessed huge problems in the downfall of this industry. When I was young, that industry was the number one employer in southeast Alaska. Today,

that is struggling. Last year, I provided on June 3 some really depressing figures relating to the downfall of that industry in southeast Alaska. The limited entry permit system came into existence

in the 1970’s. That provided the right for many of the people to fish

in southeast Alaska. In the 1970’s, the community of Kake received

29 limited entry permits. They have eight active permits now. The

community of Angoon received 27 active permits. They now have

one active permit. The community of Hoonah had 53 limited entry

permits. They now have four active permits.

There are few processors available in the villages, and this will

not get any better this year, with two more processors announcing

the fact that they are going to be leaving southeast Alaska. This

is due to a whole bunch of things relating to the market in wild

salmon. Like I said earlier, the inundation of farmed salmon

throughout the world has had a devastating impact on the marketing of wild salmon in Alaska.

Another thing that has been really affecting the fishing community in southeast Alaska is the loss of halibut IFQs. One huge example of this loss is that in the community of Kake, the National

Marine Fisheries Service told us last week when we were working

on a piece of legislation in the State legislature that the community

of Kake started out with 300,000 pounds of halibut IFQ, with the

IFQ ability to sell those IFQs that came along with the rule and

regulation, they now have only 100,000 pounds. It basically means

200,000 pounds of halibut has been lost through the sale of the individual fishing quota for halibut.

Now, the National Marine Fisheries Service through the North

Pacific Fisheries Management Council has adopted a rule and regulation that allows communities to buy as a first right any halibut

or black cod quota that leaves the community. We have been working on ways to implement that and have worked on loans relating

to it because we feel very strongly about the local control of fisheries. I think that that will do a heck of a lot to keep the halibut

quota within the community.

I think that, in looking at a lot of the provision of S. 2301, I

think that a lot of it will address many of the items relating to

what is needed in the Pacific Northwest, for instance, marketing of

Alaska and Pacific Northwest wild salmon.

The markets have been in a dump the last 5 to 10 years. The

loss of that market to farmed salmon is a direct result of a number

of things, including not only marketing, but also different valueadded products and other things like keeping the fish cold and

making sure that the quality is good. But that provision, I think,

is great. I think that anything that relates to marketing of salmon

is good. The more markets we open up domestically on a national

level and international level I think is pretty good.
88

S. 2301 is a good step toward self-sufficiency and self-determination. Mr. Chairman, I thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to comment on this. I think as we go through the process

it will be much improved. We look forward to its implementation

and enactment.

Thank you very much.

[Prepared statement of Mr. Jackson appears in appendix.]

Senator INOUYE. I thank you very much, Mr. Jackson.

And now may I call on President Carlson.

STATEMENT OF ERVIN CARLSON, PRESIDENT, INTER-TRIBAL

BISON COOPERATIVE, ACCOMPANIED BY FRED DUBRAY,

INTER-TRIBAL BISON COOPERATIVE, RAPID CITY, SD

Mr. CARLSON. Good morning, Honorable Senator. I thank you for

allowing me here to speak and present this morning.

For the record, my name is Ervin Carlson. I am the president of

the Inter-Tribal Bison Cooperative, a nonprofit organization. We

are comprised of 53 federally recognized tribes across 18 States. I

am honored to present this testimony on behalf of the ITBC members in support of passage of S. 2301.

The ITBC commends the committee’s efforts to finally acknowledge and reaffirm the special relationship that exists between Native Americans and the fish and wildlife of this country.

Native Americans have long believed they exist as co-owners of

this Earth, with fish and wildlife. S. 2301 provides Native Americans an opportunity to develop the capacity and access to resources

to protect, preserve and enhance fish and wildlife resources, including buffalo. While ITBC strongly supports and endorses S. 2301 as

it applies to all fish and wildlife resources, my following remarks

are specific to buffalo as ITBC’s primary objective is to assist tribes

with restoring and enhancing buffalo on Indian lands.

Historians estimate that approximately 30 million to 80 million

buffalo thrived on the Great Plains of the United States for many

centuries, before they were hunted by the non-Indian to near-extinction in the 1800’s. Native Americans of the Great Plains

thrived on the abundant buffalo prior to being relocated and restricted to Indian reservations.

For many generations, buffalo ensured the survival of Native

Americans of the Great Plains. Naturally, this coexistence of Native Americans and buffalo on the Great Plains resulted in the

longstanding spiritual and cultural connection between Native

Americans and buffalo.

Buffalo provided Native Americans with food, shelter, clothing

and essential tools, and ensured the continuance of their subsistence way of life, resulting in a self-sufficient existence that was

devastated along with the destruction of the buffalo herds.

The lifestyle of the tribes dominated by interaction with the natural world was profoundly impacted by the needless loss of the buffalo that most tribes still consider to be a holocaust. While Native

Americans of the Great Plains have been forced away from their

customary subsistence lifestyle, their profound respect for buffalo

remains. Buffalo remains an integral part and component of the

cultural and religious beliefs and ceremonies of Native Americans.
89

The passage of time has not diminished the spiritual and cultural connection that we Native Americans have with buffalo, and

a strong desire exists among Native Americans to repopulate Indian lands with healthy buffalo. In 1992, seven tribes committed to

this, to preserving the sacred relationship between buffalo and Native Americans, and established the ITBC as an effort to restore

buffalo to Indian lands.

ITBC focused its restoration efforts on reservation lands that

often did not sustain other economic or agricultural efforts. Lands

that were unproductive for farming or raising livestock were and

still are suitable for buffalo. ITBC began actively restoring buffalo

to Indian lands upon the receipt of limited grant funding from the

Department of the Interior.

The organization began with seven founding tribes and approximately 1,500 animals. Today, 53 tribes have joined ITBC and 35

of those tribes have various sizes of herds, with approximately now

15,000 animals. However, the restoration efforts remain in the infancy stages as the buffalo herds have not yet developed to a degree to overcome the loss to the tribal cultures as many herds are

comprised of very few animals and many herds remain vulnerable

to limited resources for proper management.

Many ITBC member tribes desire to raise buffalo only as a spiritual and cultural effort. These tribes wish to cultivate their religious and spiritual connections to the buffalo and are not interested in commercial marketing of the buffalo for economic development efforts. However, some of these tribes are interested in the

harvest of buffalo only for the purpose of feeding tribal members.

Therefore, while ITBC’s restoration efforts remain paramount, numerous ITBC member tribes that have maintained viable buffalo

herds are now interested in developing the means to provide buffalo to Native American populations as a healthy food source.

Native Americans currently suffer from the highest rates of type

2 diabetes and they also suffer at extreme rates from cardiovascular and various other diet-related diseases. Studies indicate

that type 2 diabetes commonly emerges when a population undergoes radical diet changes. Native Americans have been forced to

abandon traditional diets rich in wild game, buffalo and plants.

Based on current data, it is safe to assume that disease rates of

Native Americans are directly impacted by a genetic inability to effectively metabolize modern foods. Range-fed buffalo meat is low in

fat and cholesterol and is compatible to the genetics of Indian people. ITBC strives to develop an educational initiative to reintroduce

buffalo into the diets of Native Americans to combat the high rates

of diet-related diseases.

With that history as to the buffalo there, I would also like to talk

about our support for S. 2301. ITBC supports the passage of Federal legislation that acknowledges the significant relationship between Native Americans and the fish and wildlife resources located

on Indian lands. Native Americans coexisted with fish and wildlife

in this country for many centuries. The rights of tribes to continue

with hunting, fishing and gathering wildlife resources has been recognized and guaranteed in Indian treaties between tribes and the

United States.
90

S. 2301 will acknowledge the inherent sovereign authority of

tribes to manage fish and wildlife resources within their respective

jurisdictions, and provide tribes with the means to develop and

achieve meaningful management objectives. Legislation specifically

authorizing tribes to manage fish and wildlife resources is consistent with the promotion of tribal self-determination.

Additionally, ITBC believes S. 2301 will foster the sound management of tribal fish and wildlife resources, that in turn will have

a positive effect on tribal economies. S. 2301 solidifies the trust

duty of the United States to ensure proper management of tribal

fish and wildlife resources.

S. 2301 will provide critical funding to allow Native American

tribes to investigate and inventory fish and wildlife resources, and

then to develop the capacity to effectively manage those resources.

Upon proper identification of resources, tribes will be empowered

to address the protection, conservation and enhancement of fish

and wildlife. Presently, many tribes have not developed regulatory

schemes for their fish and wildlife resources such as buffalo, and

do not have the trained personnel to best protect these resources.

S. 2301 will allow tribes to develop effective management plans

that will maximize the production of fish and wildlife, including

buffalo, to better meet tribal subsistence, ceremony, recreational

and commercial needs.

Additionally, S. 2301 will create employment opportunities for

tribal members in wildlife management positions. S. 2301 also establishes a framework for the long-range goal of some ITBC member tribes to commercially market buffalo meat through the authority, to develop certification standards, and marketing initiatives.

ITBC member tribes have been frustrated with the inability to coordinate with the Secretary of Agriculture to furnish tribally produced, range- fed buffalo to the food distribution program for Indian reservations. S. 2301 would allow ITBC member tribes to develop an alternative, tribally controlled program to distribute natural range-fed buffalo to Native American populations.

Additionally, S. 2301 requires the Secretary of Agriculture to

consult with tribes to allow tribes meaningful participation in

USDA programs and to improve the diet-related health conditions

of Indian people.

Finally, S. 2301 would allow ITBC and its member tribes the resources to offer meaningful alternatives to the needless killing of

Yellowstone-area buffalo.

In conclusion, the passage of S. 2301 will ensure that the critical

efforts of ITBC to restore buffalo to Indian lands will continue.

Currently, ITBC has been funded only by yearly grants with no assurance of continuous funding. Although ITBC has made significant and admirable progress to restore buffalo to Indian lands, the

herds remain in stages of infancy. Consistent and adequate funding

is critical to continue with the restoration efforts.

S. 2301 will allow tribes to achieve the goal of providing healthy

range-fed buffalo to American Indian populations to combat diet-related diseases. Most importantly, S. 2301 will allow tribes to restore and manage buffalo herds on their tribal lands in a manner

that is compatible with the economic goals and the spiritual and

cultural beliefs of the tribes.
91

ITBC believes that this legislative effort is long overdue and

strongly urges its passage. And also we would urge to incorporate

some appropriate language in there to ensure that the buffalo are

protected and managed in a manner compatible to the tribal interests.

Thank you.

[Prepared statement of Mr. Carlson appears in appendix.]

Senator INOUYE. I thank you very much, Mr. Carlson.

Chief Mayo, I have listened to your testimony very carefully. You

speak of your village being landlocked during the wintertime.

There is no highway connecting you to the rest of Alaska. There

is no air base and a barge goes up there twice a year, and they

charge you 45 cents a pound, and your unemployment is high. How

many people live in Stevens Village?

Mr. MAYO. Probably about 90 to 100, give or take the 10 people

that go back and forth or so.

Senator INOUYE. So the population of your community is 90 people?

Mr. MAYO. Just in our community, but we have a great many

tribal members living all over, Fairbanks, Anchorage, down in the

Lower 48, that because of economic and educational opportunities

have had to move.

Senator INOUYE. And you believe that this measure will address

your conditions?

Mr. MAYO. I believe it would really help in rebuilding our community through the different aspects that this bill would do. Even

though we sound very remote and a very small community, with

the coming of the oil pipeline and road, that caused a great impact

by people coming in to our area and competing for a very limited

subsistence resource.

In the first place, we have to develop a resource program there,

and also this would really help us, and the educational and training aspects of providing employment, but also get our elders involved to start training and give insight to our younger tribal members in the cultural and spiritual aspects in our relationship with

the land and animals around us.

It would really give them some identity and a foundation to get

out there in the world and seek higher education to start learning

the western biological aspects of resource management. And also,

in the ways of some of the marketing of seafood and bison section

of it, that eventually we have to start becoming self-sufficient. We

see that down the road this would provide culturally relevant economic development opportunities for us.

I also serve as the Chairman of the Council of Athabascan Tribal

Governments, a 10-member inter-tribal consortium. In fact, I recognize two tribal members that have gone out and have come back

to the communities and are offering some of their educational

training to the efforts of looking after our natural resources and

lands surrounding our communities. If I could recognize Craig

Fleener and Ben Stevens here, if they are still here. They had to

leave to another meeting.

We also have a lot of our younger high school kids that are very

interested. They want to stay at home, but the opportunities are

very limited. We are entering a new economy now, and that being
92

a more and more cash-based economy. For years, like I mentioned,

we have to develop a program because of the impacts coming off

of this oil pipeline road. Even in the wintertime, a lot of

recreationists and just competition for a limited resource already

that a lot of our people do want to move back.

I myself, my family had to move for economic and educational

reasons, and after being out in the world quite a few years, I found

my way back home and I am now raising my family in our ancestral homeland. We had cobbled our resource program together with

an unsteady funding base for quite a few years now, with the help

of our Director who is also trained, and other younger tribal members, we jus get by on whatever we can raise to ensure that we look

out for these resources in the most traditional manner in contemporary times as possible, and reaffirm our relationship with these

animals through our tribal governance.

We have been for many years working as cooperative managers

with the Fish and Wildlife Service. We are located in the Yukon

Flats National Wildlife Refuge, so we work as cooperative managers with these folks, and also with the state Department of Fish

and Game, and as Dewey here had mentioned, that we work within

the existing system up there to affect regulation and change based

on the collection of scientific data. In this way, we try to insert a

lot of our traditional knowledge and science, just our understanding of the resources and lands around us, through our program

here.

So I see this would really help us out in the long run.

Senator INOUYE. I thank you very much, Chief.

Mr. Schwalenberg, what role do Alaska Natives have at this moment in developing regulatory programs to manage fish and wildlife programs? Do they have any role?

Mr. SCHWALENBERG. Currently, the role of Alaska Natives in the

management regime is an advisory role to the existing Game Board

of Fish through an advisory council or through the subsistence

board through rural advisory councils. Native people also form comanagement entities with Federal agencies such as the Whaling

Commission or the Sea Harbor Commission, the Sea Otter Commission, where the agencies work directly with Native subsistence

users to form these working groups. And then the management

that is developed through those groups is implemented by the state

and Federal agencies.

The tribes themselves have no position on any of these commissions or entities. Tribal governments do not have a seat at the

table, but Native people do. So the regime is pretty much involved

Native people, but has ignored the tribal governments and their

specific governing role.

Senator INOUYE. But tribal people have what role? Advisory

only?

Mr. SCHWALENBERG. Yes; everybody is in an advisory capacity

within the existing regime.

Senator INOUYE. Would this change the situation, this bill?

Mr. SCHWALENBERG. We do not believe that it is going to change

that situation because the tribes are not intending to exercise any

authority over the State or Federal management of resources. The

tribes are intending to manage resources for the benefit of their
93

people and they will do it in a cooperative manner because, as an

example, the corporation lands, Stevens Village has a land-use plan

and has a land-use agreement with its village corporation. The village corporation has 136,000 acres around the village, and the tribe

serves as the managing entity that manages the resources within

those corporation lands. The Doyan Regional Corporation throughout the Yukon Flats has about 2.4 million acres of lands, and we

work cooperatively with them.

So the bill does not recognize any authority that the tribal governments do not currently have, nor does it diminish any of the authority that the tribal government has because of its sovereignty

and its constitutional provisions. So the Government recognizes

that the lands that it has authority on, and where it does not have

legal authority, it develops cooperative management agreements

and then participates in the management.

Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much.

Mr. Jackson, you spoke of your high unemployment rates and

that fish and wildlife, fishing especially, may be the only source of

food and employment you have. What has been your experience

with co-management agreements regarding the management of fish

and wildlife?

Mr. JACKSON. Our experience has been very positive. At the

table, for instance, at the Migratory Bird Treaty, the state and

Federal Government work with tribal governments in the development of a plan relating to migratory birds in Alaska. And we developed rules and regulations relating to it. We worked all these policies out amongst one another. I think it works very good in the

case, along with marine mammals.

In many cases, many communities initiate these kind of things.

For instance, last year I could tell you about Kanalku Creek on Admiralty Island in Southeast Alaska, the runs of red salmon, sockeye salmon were going low. They decided at the local level that

they would not take any of those sockeye salmon until the runs

came back. With the state and Federal Government, they developed a plan, initiated by local folks that would do that. Everybody

has basically watched that creek and managed it together.

So I think in my experience in Alaska, it has been real positive

if everybody understands their role. I know there has been a lot of

debate relating to that. It only breaks down when one party does

not understand their duties and responsibilities. As long as everybody understands their role, I think it works fairly decently and

you are able to work out the kinks.

Senator INOUYE. Do you believe that this legislation would encourage the continuation of such co-management agreements?

Mr. JACKSON. I think it would. There is adequate provision in the

legislation that allows for cooperative agreements among everyone.

Senator INOUYE. Thank you.

Mr. Carlson, you spoke of your buffalo herd increasing from

1,500 to 15,000, and you mentioned that you were receiving a grant

per year. How much do you receive?

Mr. CARLSON. Our funding is through the Department of the In- terior. In the past year, we received $2.2 million, but this is funding that is just yearly funding and subject to change at any time

or not be there. That is a real problem to ITBC.
94

Senator INOUYE. So you received $2.6 million last year?

Mr. CARLSON. $2.2 million.

Senator INOUYE. $2.2 million. What would you need to increase

your herd further?

Mr. CARLSON. We have 53 member tribes as of now, and just to speak on the money that we need, the $2.2 million sounds like

maybe a lot of money, but in fact when it is distributed out between the needs of the 53 tribes, it does not cover that. I believe

a two percent increase would help the tribes to get the herds to a

sustainable amount.

Senator INOUYE. In order to implement the provisions of this

measure, obviously it would necessitate funds. I would like to receive from all of the witnesses today some indication of what level

of funding would be necessary to reasonably put this bill into effect.

We would like to know what we are talking about as to what the

level of funding may look like. I am certain my colleagues would

like to know.

Yes, sir?

Mr. CARLSON. As to ITBC and to the restoration efforts, I would

like to answer the question that was asked a little earlier about the

funding, and also to this which you are asking now. With ITBC, we

take the proposals from those 53 tribes, and they put down their

needs of funding that they need. Currently, that need would be $20

million. So the $2.2 million is far below the $20 million that is

needed.

Senator INOUYE. With that, I would like to thank all of you for

your testimony today. It has been extremely helpful. As I indicated

earlier, the record will be kept open until May 31. If you have any

addendums or corrections to make, please submit them to the committee.

With that the hearing is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 12:08 p.m., the committee was adjourned, to reconvene at the call of the Chair.]
(95)

APPENDIX

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. GORDON SMITH, U.S. SENATOR FROM OREGON

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank our witnesses for testifying today

on the Native American Fish and Wildlife Resources Management Act of 2004. I

hope today’s hearing will further add to the discussion of self-determination and

self-governance.

Effective development and poverty alleviation often hinges on improved tribal control. Empowering tribes with culturally appropriate means to enhance and maximize tribal capability and capacity in managing fish and wildlife resources is in the

interest of all Americans. I am committed to supporting the economic development

of Native communities through such economic opportunities as natural resource development and the conservation and management of fish and wildlife resources.

Tribes have a close relationship with fish and wildlife that goes much further

than the Federal stewardship. Indian people must live with- the consequences of

their action or inaction. This intimacy has built strong cultural and traditional ties

to fish and wildlife that have existed for thousands of years. Thus, tribes are much

better able to manage their resources.

This legislation is an excellent step toward decentralization of Federal control to

tribal management. The National Indian Forests Resource Management Act

[NIFRMA] of 1990 is an excellent precedent to the benefits of such decentralization.

Tribes today manage their own forests at such an innovative and sustainable level

that many are entering into stewardship agreements to help manage our national

forests with the U.S. Forest Service.

Tribes have only been able to develop such expertise in managing their resources

with the help of such pioneering legislation as NIFRMA. Today’s hearing will provide insight into Native American Fish and Wildlife Resource Management Act of

2004 as another excellent piece of legislation toward self-determination and economic opportunity for Native Americans.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing and I most interested in today’s

testimonies. I look forward to working with tribal leaders, administrators, and other

stakeholders in achieving a better management of Native American fish and wildlife

resources. Thank you.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ERVIN CARLSON, PRESIDENT INTERTRIBAL BISON

COOPERATIVE

Good Morning, Honorable members of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs.

My name is Ervin Carlson and I am the president of the InterTribal Bison Cooperative [ITBC], a nonprofit organization comprised of 53 federally recognized tribes

across 18 States of the United States. I am honored to present this testimony on

behalf of the ITBC member tribes in support of passage of S. 2301. ITBC commends

this committee’s efforts to finally acknowledge and reaffirm the special relationship

that exists between Native Americans and the fish and wildlife of this country. Na-
96

tive Americans have long believed they exist as co-owners of this earth with fish

and wildlife. S. 2301 provides Native Americans an opportunity to develop the capacity and access the resources to protect, preserve and enhance fish and wildlife

resources including buffalo. While ITBC strongly supports and endorses S. 2301, as

it applies to all fish and wildlife resources, my following remarks are specific to buffalo as ITBC’s primary objective is to assist tribes with restoring and enhancing buffalo on Indian lands.

Historians estimate that approximately 30 to 80 million Buffalo thrived on the

great plains of the United States for many centuries before they were hunted by

the non-Indian to near extinction in the 1800’s. Native Americans of the Great

Plains thrived on the abundant buffalo prior to being relocated and restricted to Indian reservations. For many generations, buffalo insured the survival of Native

Americans of the Great Plains. Naturally, this co-existence of Native Americans and

buffalo on the Great Plains resulted in the longstanding spiritual and cultural connection between Native Americans and buffalo. Buffalo provided Native Americans

with food, shelter, clothing and essential tools and insured the continuance of their

subsistence way of life resulting in a self sufficient existence that was devastated

along with the destruction of the buffalo herds. The lifestyle of the Tribes, dominated by interaction with the natural world, was profoundly impacted by the needless loss of the buffalo that most Tribes still consider to be a holocaust.

While Native Americans of the Great Plains have been forced away from their

customary subsistence lifestyle, their profound respect for buffalo remains. Buffalo

remain an integral component of the cultural and religious beliefs and ceremonies

of Native Americans.

1 The passage of time has not diminished the spiritual and cultural connection

between Native Americans and buffalo and a strong desire exists among Native

Americans to repopulate Indian lands with healthy buffalo.

In 1992, seven tribes, committed to preserving the sacred relationship between

buffalo and Native Americans established the ITBC as an effort to restore buffalo

to Indian lands. ITBC focused its restoration efforts on reservation lands that often

did not sustain other economic or agricultural efforts. Lands that were unproductive

for farming or raising livestock were and still are suitable for buffalo. ITBC began

actively restoring buffalo to Indian lands upon the receipt of limited grant funding

from the Department of the Interior. The organization began with the 7 founding

tribes and approximately 1,500 animals. Today, 53 tribes have joined ITBC, 35 of

them have buffalo herds of various sizes with a total of approximately 15,000 animals. However, the restoration efforts remain in infancy stages, as the buffalo herds

have not yet developed to a degree to overcome the loss to the tribal cultures, as

many herds are comprised of very few animals and many herds remain vulnerable

due to limited resources for proper management.

ITBC’s primary focus remains on the restoration of buffalo to those Indian reservation lands that can sustain them to reestablish the sacred relationship between

tribes and buffalo. Although ITBC has been successful in its 10 years of existence

with restoring buffalo in limited numbers to some Indian lands, many other tribes

desire the means to establish sound buffalo herds, but lack the resources to fulfill

that desire.

Many ITBC member tribes desire to raise buffalo only as a spiritual and cultural

effort. These tribes wish to cultivate their religious and spiritual connections to the

buffalo and are not interested in commercial marketing of the buffalo for economic

development efforts. However, some of these tribes are interested in the harvest of

buffalo only for the purpose of feeding tribal members. Therefore, while ITBC’s restoration efforts remain paramount, numerous ITBC member tribes that have maintained viable buffalo herds are now interested in developing the means to provide

buffalo to Native American populations as a healthy food source.

Native Americans currently suffer from the highest rates of Type 2 diabetes and

they also suffer at extreme rates from cardio vascular and various other diet-related

diseases. Studies indicate that Type 2 diabetes commonly emerges when a population undergoes radical diet changes. Native Americans have been forced to abandon traditional diets rich in wild game, buffalo, and plants. Based on current data,

it is safe to assume that disease rates of Native Americans are directly impacted

by a genetic inability to effectively metabolize modern foods. Range fed buffalo meat

is low in fat and cholesterol and is compatible to the genetics of Indian people. ITBC

strives to develop an educational initiative to reintroduce buffalo into the diets of

Native Americans to combat the high rates of diet-related diseases.

Additionally, ITBC strives to develop processes to facilitate providing tribally

raised range-fed buffalo to Native Americans dependent on Federal food distribution

programs. Currently, buffalo meat provided to Native Americans living on Indian

reservations is often not natural range fed buffalo but grain-fed buffalo raised by
97

non-Indians. Grain feeding buffalo compromises the health benefits of the buffalo

food products. Without adequate funding, ITBC cannot insure that Native American

populations are provided range fed buffalo produced by Native American tribes.

In addition to buffalo restoration and providing range-fed buffalo to Native American populations as a healthy food source, some ITBC member tribes are interested

in utilizing buffalo for tribal economic development efforts. Thus, ITBC has now undertaken efforts to, insure that ITBC member tribes have opportunities to develop

economically sustainable buffalo herds through the development of marketing initiatives. The current sizes of Tribal buffalo herds limit achieving economic sustainability of the herds and of the buffalo projects providing tribes with economic benefit. However, with adequate funding to develop sustainable herds, commercial marketing of buffalo remains an important goal for many ITBC member tribes.

Since its inception in 1992, ITBC has participated in the longstanding debates of

the Greater Yellowstone Inter-Agency Brucellosis Committee [GYIBC], an organization established to address the risk of Yellowstone National Park buffalo transmitting brucellosis to livestock. Yellowstone National Park buffalo possess pure bison

bison genus genetics, unlike other North American strains that indicate cross-breeding with cattle. ITBC desires to transfer excess Yellowstone buffalo to tribal lands

as part of ITBC’s restoration efforts. However, Yellowstone buffalo have been determined to be at risk of brucellosis and the current policy of the GYIBC has been to

kill buffalo that wander out of the Yellowstone Park for feeding purposes.

ITBC has recently obtained a non-voting seat on the GYIBC with the intention

of supporting alternatives to address the Yellowstone buffalo brucellosis concern including the development of more effective vaccinations and quarantine facilities for

testing and treatment. ITBC remains hopeful that Yellowstone buffalo, upon successful treatment to diminish brucellosis concerns, may be transferred to tribal

lands.

ITBC supports the passage of Federal legislation that acknowledges the significant relationship between Native Americans and the fish and wildlife resources located on Indian lands. Native Americans co-existed with fish and wildlife in this

country for many centuries. The rights of tribes to continue with hunting, fishing,

and gathering wildlife resources has been recognized and guaranteed in treaties between tribes and the United States. S. 2301 will acknowledge the inherent sovereign

authority of tribes to manage fish and wildlife resources within their respective jurisdictions and provide tribes with the means to develop and achieve meaningful

management objectives.

Legislation specifically authorizing tribes to manage fish and wildlife resources is

consistent with the promotion of tribal self-determination. Additionally, ITBC believes S. 2301 will foster the sound management of tribal fish and wildlife resources

that in turn will have a positive effect on tribal economies. S. 2301 solidifies the

trust duty of the United States to insure proper management of tribal fish and wildlife resources.

S. 2301 will provide critical funding to allow Native American tribes to investigate

and inventory fish and wildlife resources and then to develop the capacity to effectively manage those resources. Upon proper identification of resources, tribes will

be empowered to address the protection, conservation and enhancement of fish and

wildlife. Presently, many tribes have not developed regulatory schemes for their fish

and wildlife resources, such as buffalo, and do not have the trained personnel to

best protect these resources. S. 2301 will allow tribes to develop effective management plans that will maximize the production of fish and wildlife, including buffalo,

to better—meet tribal subsistence, ceremonial, recreational and commercial needs.

Additionally, S. 2301 will create employment opportunities for Tribal members in

wildlife management positions.

S. 2301 also establishes a framework for the long-range goal of some ITBC member tribes to commercially market buffalo meat through the authority to develop certification standards and marketing initiatives. ITBC member tribes have been frustrated with the inability to coordinate with the Secretary of Agriculture to furnish

tribally produced range-fed buffalo to the Food Distribution Program for Indian reservations. S. 2301 would allow ITBC member tribes to develop an alternative tribally controlled program to distribute natural range fed buffalo to Native American

populations. Additionally, S. 2301 requires the Secretary of Agriculture to consult

with tribes to allow tribes meaningful participation in USDA programs and improve

the diet related health conditions of Indian people.

Finally, S. 2301 would allow ITBC and its member tribes the resources to offer

meaningful alternatives to the needless killing of Yellowstone Area buffalo.

Passage of S. 2301 will insure that the critical efforts of ITBC to restore buffalo

to Indian lands will continue. Currently, ITBC has been funded only by yearly

grants with no assurance of continuous funding. Although ITBC has made signifi-
98

cant and admirable progress to restore buffalo to Indian lands, the herds remain

in stages of infancy and consistent and adequate funding is critical to continue with

restoration efforts. S. 2301 will allow Tribes to achieve the goal of providing healthy

range-fed buffalo to American Indian populations to combat diet related diseases.

Most importantly, S. 2301 will allow Tribes to restore and manage buffalo herds on

their Tribal lands, in a manner that is compatible with the economic goals and the

spiritual and cultural beliefs of the tribes.

ITBC believes this legislative effort is long overdue and strongly urges passage.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RANDY MAYO, FIRST CHIEF, STEVENS VILLAGE IRA

COUNCIL

Chairman Inouye, members of the committee honored guests, thank you for this

opportunity to testify before you during the oversight hearing on S. 2301, a discussion draft bill that would improve the management of Native American fish and

wildlife and gathering, and for other purposes. I am honored by this invitation to

present oral testimony to the committee. Our written testimony has already been

submitted by our tribal natural resource director, Dewey Schwalenberg seated here

to my right. I speak today in support of the this bill in behalf of my 215 tribal members and for the other community residents of Stevens Village who stand to benefit

from the resource management and protection that this bill will provide to my community. Stevens Village is located 90 air miles North of Fairbanks, AK on the North

bank of the Yukon River. There are 30 households in the village and 90 residents.

Most are Tribal members and share-holders in the Dinyee Native Village Corporation. I am the vice president of the Dinyee Corporation. The remainder of the tribal

members reside in Fairbanks or other communities because they need to have work

which is difficult to find in the village. Many of our members would like to live in

the village and most do use fish, wildlife, and forestry resources from our traditional

lands during certain seasons of the year. There are no roads to Stevens Village.

Transportation is by small plane, by boat up the Yukon River from the Yukon River

Bridge on the Dalton Highway 27 miles down stream from the village or by snow

machine or dog sled to the Bridge in the winter. Barges come up the River twice

a year to deliver fuel and construction materials.

Air freight for personal goods to the village is 45 cents per pound. None of the

houses have sewer and water but we do have treated water and sewer to the school

and water plant. The school has 13 students from pre-school to 12th grade. The

Council is the largest employer in the village and we have 7 full-time workers and

12–15 seasonal workers. The tribal Lands and natural resource program employs

most of our workers for fisheries, wildlife, forestry, and environmental projects.

Without the resource program the community would have little employment. Funding for these programs have been challenging to maintain. Periodic grants have kept

the program going for the past 6 years but permanent funding is necessary, soon

or we will loose this portion of our economy. Our people are very much dependant

upon the Salmon that comes up-river in the summer and on moose that live around

the village. The moose population is at a very low level and we have taken steps

to begin raising buffalo to supplement our meat supply.

To provide the technical comments on the bill I will ask Mr. Schwalenberg to use

the rest of our time to highlight our technical testimony.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF IRA NEW BREAST, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIVE

AMERICAN FISH AND WILDLIFE SOCIETY

Mr. Chairman, Vice Chairman and distinguished committee members:

My name is Ira New Breast. I am the executive director of the Native American

Fish and Wildlife Society and an enrolled member of the Blackfeet Tribe of Montana. I would like to respectfully thank you for the opportunity to present testimony

to the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs on the development of the ‘‘Native American Fish and Wildlife Management Act of 2004.’’ I am grateful that the discussion

draft Bill has been presented to tribes, tribal organizations and others for comments

and appreciate this committee’s willingness to listen to and work with such entities

to make this legislation the best that it can be.

The society is a national non-profit organization, established in 1982, whose mission is to assist Native American and Alaska Native Tribes with the conservation,

protection and enhancement of their fish, wildlife, habitat and cultural resources.

The Society strives to assist tribes in their development and implementation of

sound laws, regulations, policies and practices that preserve and protect fish and

wildlife resources, are consistent with and enhance cultural traditions and values
99

and improve the general welfare of Indian peoples through fish and wildlife related

educational activities.

As a national organization the Society has a unique national perspective, all

tribes have distinctive perspectives and interests with a variety of fish and wildlife

resources, diverse habitats and signature approaches to management. Our organization is not a substitute for important government-to-government relationships with

tribes, we do offer forums in which Federal agencies can initiate outreach to that

end. The Society does not act in representation or proxy of individual tribes. The

Society does have mechanisms to facilitate astute tribal deliberation to planning, development and operational efforts surrounding fish and wildlife in Indian country.

As an individual, I have 16 years experience working in the field managing fish

and wildlife. For 12 of those years my work activities have included nearly all aspects of tribal fish and wildlife conservation management, they extend into administration, law enforcement, policy and regulatory development, fund raising, and local

to national representation. My experience has led me to witness first-hand the in

depth needs that exist and depend in order to support management by tribes for

their fish and wildlife resource. From this grassroots perspective I recall the history

of the proposed legislation and continue to hope for the original purpose and intent.

While development of the Native American Fish and Wildlife Resources Management Act is a strong statement of the Federal Government’s commitment to Indian

resources, tribes need the Federal Government to reinforce their management capabilities by and through a renewed and clarified commitment to tribal fish and wildlife resources, further defining the application of trust responsibility in the arena

of Tribal fish and wildlife relationships. Funding cuts, reductions in programs and

inequities or inconsistencies in budgeting and support perpetuates a lukewarm and

uncertain commitment by the Federal Government and cause difficulties for tribes

in properly managing natural resources. General Federal conservation and management programs targeting resource protection on a broader, national scale do not provide a consistent support mechanism upon which strong and effective tribal conservation and management programs can be built. Tribes need legislation to help

resource management on Indian lands. Without specific devotion to the fundamental

management of Indian resources, shortfalls and gaps will continue and resources

will suffer.

The Society can attempt to provide its perspective on the challenges facing tribes

as they strive to develop and sustain fish and wildlife management programs on

tribal lands or for tribal resources. If legislation is to effectively respond to the challenges, the bill as currently drafted needs to be narrowed and refined, identifying

support mechanisms for on-the-ground management and conservation of fish and

wildlife in Indian country. The bill needs to focus on fundamental fish and wildlife

conservation management and should not be diverted for other purposes. While support of special and specific interests are valid in certain areas of Indian country,

S. 2301 attempts to achieve too much and should not dilute the basic unmet needs

that exist for many Indian tribes. Legislation and funding for core tribal fish and

wildlife management programs should be stabilized, made equitable and consistent

between tribes, and not be provided on a sporadic, competitive basis. In anticipation

of objections to the success of the S. 2301, strategic foresight may prudently include

a streamline structure consistent with the original intent, theme and title of this

legislation.

In the event that the legislation is enacted, S. 2301 does not identify funding

sources and will likely go unfunded, distinctive special issues or needs may find a

higher degree of success on an individual basis or practical channel. Special issues

and needs may likely be best effective and given attention in a bill suited to the

particular issues or needs. Unique interests should be addressed, but should be addressed in regards and in deference to affected representatives and unmet needs

that do not exist for other tribes. Tribes must be afforded equitable opportunity reflected by their unique circumstances across the nation, as each tribe has some level

of unmet resource management needs. Resource needs that exceed fundamental fish

and wildlife conservation management needs (like the need for enforcement officers,

scientific capacity or operational assets) may be dealt with on an alternative basis.

The Society is encouraged by the emphasis on resource education as it is consistent with the priorities of the Society. This bill will take a leap forward in supporting

sorely needed educational programs in tribal fish and wildlife management. it may

be possible to combine some of the education provisions and to review the programs

relative to current, similar programs.

Fundamental tribal fish and wildlife conservation management should be supported and funded by the Federal Government on a permanent, non-exclusive and

equitable basis, to secure adequate resources, and truly make this a success. Over

the years, conservation and management programs for States and U.S. territories,
100

funded by Federal dollars, do not translate into conservation and management benefits for Indian country. This legislation will demonstrate for tribes equity in their

part to manage vital natural resources that benefit the American people. We look

forward to working with the committee to identify this resolve and to implement or

reinforce programs for the benefit of tribal natural resources. Thank You.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF OLNEY PATT, JR., EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COLUMBIA RIVER

INTER-TRIBAL FISH COMMISSION

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, on behalf of the Columbia River treaty

tribes, I would like to thank you for this opportunity to provide testimony on the

Native American Fish and Wildlife Resources Management Act of 2004. My name

is Olney Patt, Jr. and I am the executive director of the Columbia River Inter-Tribal

Fish Commission. The Commission was formed by resolution of the Nez Perce Tribe,

the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, the Confederated

Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon and the Confederated Tribes and

Bands of the Yakama Nation for the purpose of coordinating fishery management

policy and providing technical expertise essential for the protection of the tribes’

treaty-protected fish resources. Both independently and through their Commission

process, the Columbia River treaty tribes have worked cooperatively, and with some

success, with the States and Federal agencies, as well as with private landowners,

to restore populations of the shared salmon resource. The Columbia River treaty

tribes see this bill as opportunity to provide a framework for tribes to deal with specific on-reservation resource management issues as well as to provide a national

framework that can allow tribes, states and the Federal Government to also successfully address regional management issues where there are shared natural resources.

I want to note that I will focus on a couple of key elements of this bill in my testimony today and that I will supplement the record with additional written testimony

within a few weeks.

Since 1977, our Commission has contracted with the BIA under the Indian SelfDetermination Act (P.L. 93–638) to provide technical expertise essential for the protection of the tribes’ treaty-protected fish resources. Through a governing body of

leaders from four tribes working together to protect their treaty fishing rights and

a staff of biologists, hydrologists, law enforcement personnel, and other experts advising tribal policymakers, this Commission has demonstrated that tribes are able

to coordinate with a multitude of parties on a regional, national, and international

level. What we have learned during the history of the Commission is that through

better regional coordination and cooperation, we can spend more time working with

state and Federal land water mangers on developing shared resource management

strategies and less time in court.

Since the tribes formed the Commission, we have seen the development and implementation of a cooperative harvest management plan for the Columbia River. In

the late 1960’s and through the 1970’s, the tribes spent much time in court debating

how the tribes and states should share the conservation burden of the shared salmon resource. By the late 1980’s, the tribes and states had come to an agreement on

a harvest plan for co-management of this resource, with some agreement on production programs. This plan, though currently under revision, has largely replaced the

annual litigation over the conservation and harvest management of the shared

salmon resource that originates in the Columbia River.

On an international scale, in the early 1980’s we witnessed a dangerous coastwide

decline in Chinook salmon stocks from southeast Alaska, through British Columbia,

and throughout the Pacific Northwest. The need to deal with this conservation crisis

helped to push the United States and Canada to reach an agreement on the Pacific

Salmon Treaty in 1985. Under the Treaty, there is now a management structure

through which the parties can share technical information and develop strategies

to deal with management problems concerning the shared salmon resource. The Columbia River treaty tribes, along with the western Washington treaty fishing tribes,

were significant participants in the negotiation of that Treaty and continue to play

a significant role in its implementation.

Now each of the examples I’ve outlined deal with complex, multi-jurisdictional

management issues. More often than not, we would anticipate that individual tribes

would use the management planning and resource inventory structure outlined in

this bill to address on-reservation resource management issues. At the same time,

this resource inventory and management planning process may have an application

for shared resources off reservation, such as salmon. In either case though, this bill

acknowledges the importance of the tribes to participate in the resource planning

and management of resources they reserved to themselves through the treaty process with the United States, or that have been recognized through executive orders,
101

statutes, judicial decrees, or through other methods. Just as importantly, the structure and process laid out in the bill can help to prevent surprises to resource users

on the a reservation or, particularly in the case of shared resources that may be

taken by tribal members off-reservation, the planning process can help to prevent

surprises for non-tribal members off-reservation.

This bill, by specifically allowing tribes to opt-in to the resource inventory and

planning process, recognizes that the needs of individual tribes differ within regions

and across the continent. This bill does not force any tribe to undertake the resource

inventory and management planning process provided in this bill. Undertaking a resource inventory and survey would only occur at the request of a tribe, the development of a resource management plan would then follow at a pace set by each individual tribe. Nor would this bill require any tribe to abandon a current management

plan, co-management agreements, or any other working resource management plan.

It does offer the promise of a structure and the resources that can be utilized by

all tribes, at their option, in developing new plans or in revising old management

plans.

I would like to note an important element in this bill: Section 202 of the bill provides a framework to increase the educational opportunities for tribal members to

gain the knowledge and training necessary to manage tribal resources. It also provides an opportunity for tribes to coordinate and cooperate with other tribes, with

universities and with others as appropriate on technical and scientific issues associated with resource management.

We see great promise, both for tribes and for natural resource management, in

the development of tribal cooperative research units at universities across the country. Within the Columbia River basin, this Commission, working with its member

tribes, identified a critical regional need for additional facilities to handle genetics

work associated with regional salmon restoration activities. On behalf of its member

tribes, the Commission entered into a Memorandum of Agreement with the University of Idaho to site these facilities at the University’s aquaculture research facility.

Building upon that agreement, and acknowledging the desire of other tribes in the

basin to participate in the opportunities offered by our arrangement with the University, we have worked with the University to outline a memorandum to establish

a cooperative research unit that other tribes can join as well.

The formation of that tribal cooperative research unit with the University of

Idaho provides several benefits: It allows the tribes’ to have their own staff driving

the research agenda and working on resource issues of importance to the tribe; it

offers tribal staff the opportunity to reach out to the non-tribal community through

teaching assignments at the University; and it provides a place for tribal members

attending the University to take on undergraduate or graduate degree research

work. All of this would be accomplished in a cooperative, coordinated research forum

that could include other State or Federal researchers, as the tribes might determine

is appropriate. I would note that it is important that we insure that the opportunities laid out for tribal students in this section of the bill, especially as to the development of the cooperative research unit system, are integrated with the opportunities and work of the Indian College System.

I also want to touch upon another section of the bill dealing with hatchery programs. As we’ve learned in the Pacific Northwest, hatcheries can be a part of the

problem—but can also be a significant part of the solution—in ensuring the sustainability of a fishery resource. It all depends upon how the goals and objectives of a

hatchery program are reached by a tribe or in some situations, by a tribe in coordination with other co-managers. The section of the bill that provides for assistance

to the tribal hatchery programs is geared to dealing with both strictly on-reservation

tribal hatchery program activities as well as situations where tribal hatchery programs may be located at least partially off-reservation. In addition, it provides an

opportunity for a tribe, or tribes, to enter into cooperative agreements with Federal

agencies to either co-manage a hatchery program or takeover the management of

a hatchery program. In either case, we would anticipate that funding for such

hatchery management or co-management programs would originate initially with

the cooperating agency, either the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the National

Marine Fisheries Service, and not originate within the programmatic budget of the

Bureau of Indian Affairs. We could have already utilized these provisions within the

Columbia River basin to enter into mutually beneficial cooperative programs but

were hampered by the Federal agency’s lack of Congressional authority to do so.

This section of the bill would allow us to take advantage of such a cooperative venture in the future.
102

For the reasons I’ve laid out in my testimony today, the Columbia River treaty

tribes support the general concepts and opportunities provided in language of the

Native American Fish and Wildlife Resources Management Act of 2004. We would

welcome the opportunity to work with you, other members of the committee and

with your staff to fine tune the bill to ensure that it meets the needs of all of the

tribes within the United States and to ensure its passage during this Congress.
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149

Æ