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

87–608 PDF 2003

S. HRG. 108–121

STATUS OF TRIBAL FISH AND WILDLIFE

MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON

STATUS OF TRIBAL FISH AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS

ACROSS INDIAN COUNTRY

JUNE 3, 2003

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

Statements:

Brown-Schwalenberg, Patty, executive director, Chugach Regional Resources Commission ...................................................................................... 33

Cooley, Jon, interim executive director, Southwest Tribal Fisheries Commission ........................................................................................................... 27

Frank, Jr., Bill, chairman, Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission .......... 2

Harris, Tom, president, and CEO, Alaska Village Initiatives, Inc. .............. 36

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 Indians of Alaska ..................................... 30

Johnstone, Ed, Quinault Indian Nation ......................................................... 2

Kelly, Bob, Nooksack Tribe .............................................................................. 2

Matt, Clayton, executive director, Tribal Council, Confederated Salish

and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Nation .............................................. 15

Myers, Millard J., ‘‘Sonny’’, executive director, 1854 Authority ................... 25

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

Society ............................................................................................................ 17

Patt, Jr., Olney, executive director, Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish

Commission ................................................................................................... 9

Seyler, Warren, chairman, Upper Columbia United Tribes ......................... 12

Williams, Terry, Tulalip Tribes ....................................................................... 3

Zorn, James E., Policy Analyst, Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife

Commission ................................................................................................... 22

APPENDIX

Prepared statements:

Aitken, Sr., Gary, tribal chairman, Kootenai Tribe of Idaho ........................ 44

Barnet, John, chairman, Cowlitz Indian Tribe .............................................. 180

Brigham, N. Kathryn, member, board of trustees, Confederated Tribes

of the Umatilla Indian Reservation ............................................................. 50

Brown-Schwalenberg, Patty ............................................................................ 53

Cantwell, Hon. Maria, U.S. Senator from Washington ................................. 43

Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon .............. 181

Cooley, Jon ........................................................................................................ 58

Frank, Jr., Bill (with attachments) ................................................................. 67

Harris, Tom ....................................................................................................... 169

Jackson, Gordon ............................................................................................... 78

Matt, Clayton .................................................................................................... 81

Myers, Millard J., ‘‘Sonny’’ (with letter) ......................................................... 87

New Breast, Ira ................................................................................................ 93

Patt, Jr., Olney ................................................................................................. 98

Peacock, Robert B., chairman, Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa (with attachment) ................................................................................ 101

Seyler, Warren .................................................................................................. 106

Spokane Tribe (with attachments) .................................................................. 109

Teeman, Albert, chairman, Burns Paiute Tribe ............................................ 183

Upper Columbia United Tribes ....................................................................... 189

Zorn, James E. (with attachments) ................................................................. 144

(1)

STATUS OF TRIBAL FISH AND WILDLIFE

MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS

TUESDAY, JUNE 3, 2003

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS,

Washington, DC.

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

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

the committee) presiding.

Present: Senators Inouye and Murkowski.

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

HAWAII, VICE CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS

Senator INOUYE. The Committee on Indian Affairs meets this

morning to receive testimony on the status of tribal fish and wildlife management programs across Indian country.

Ten years ago, this committee worked with the leaders of Native

America to develop legislation that would provide support for the

efforts of tribal governments to preserve and protect fish and wildlife resources. Although that legislation was not enacted into law,

the members of this committee are aware that tribal fish and wildlife management programs have experienced exponential growth in

their capacities to protect the health and well-being of natural resources and the humans who rely on these resources.

Although it is widely recognized that tribal governments and

intertribal fish and wildlife management organizations have been

among the most effective stewards of natural resources, both on

tribal lands and off, today it is more than ever clear that in many

areas of Indian country, tribal governments are on the cutting edge

of new technological advances that are assuring enhanced protections of fish and wildlife and plant resources.

So we look forward to the testimony that the committee will receive, and I am pleased to call upon one of the great Indian leaders

of our time, my dear friend Bill Frank, Jr., who happens to be the

chairman of the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, but he

will be speaking for Indian country this morning.

Chairman Frank, you are always welcome here, sir.
2

STATEMENT OF BILL FRANK, JR., CHAIRMAN, NORTHWEST INDIAN FISHERIES COMMISSION, ACCOMPANIED BY TERRY

WILLIAMS, TULALIP TRIBES; BOB KELLY, NOOKSACK TRIBE;

AND ED JOHNSTONE, QUINAULT INDIAN NATION

Mr. FRANK. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. My name is Billy

Frank, chairman of the Northwest Indian Fish Commission. It is

an honor to be here before you again telling our story about the

salmon in the Northwest, plus all of our management throughout

our nation where Indian people are involved—the tribes.

Today, we are here to support our Indian tribal fish and wildlife

bill. For the sake of the salmon, the Pacific salmon throughout

Alaska, the Pacific Ocean, the State of Washington, Oregon, California, all of our tributaries throughout the Northwest, we need

this legislation. It would enhance all of the tribes throughout the

Nation on all of our management, from the Great Lakes to the

Southwest, and all of our country throughout the eastern seaboard.

The tribes have been managers of the resource for thousands of

years, but over the last 30 years that I have been chairman and

involved in the fishery in the Northwest and seeing what happens

throughout our Nation, our tribes have pretty well taken a place

in management throughout our country. They have respect within

their own areas with the local governments, as well as the cities,

the States, the counties, and the Federal Government.

We have models to show, and you are going to hear some of our

stories in the next couple of days on what we have been doing

throughout our country. In the Northwest, we have the tides twice

a day. The tides come in and the tides go out. Senator, you have

been on our water and you have seen our country, and you have

seen all of our country throughout all of our nations, including our

Native Alaskan people. You have visited our areas. We appreciate

that. But our tides tell us how calm we are as Indian people and

how patient we are. The tides come in and the tides go out.

And then our country throughout the Southwest and throughout

our Plains country, they wait for the rains—the rains that look

across the country that make everything come to life. These are

just some of the things that the Indian tribes live with, and it is

a rhythm of nature of our country. It is a very important part of

our lives that the rhythm is there. It is a very important part of

our lives that we continue that.

We are co-managers with the Federal Government, along with

the States throughout our Nation, and that gives us a standing in

the community that gives us respect. When you are managing the

natural resources, whether it is on in-stream flows or water or our

animals or our weather, our natural land, our lakes—whatever it

might be—we can sit down and we can talk and we can find a balance with the community, with the State or the Federal Government.

In the Northwest, the Magnuson-Stevens Act takes us 200 miles

out into the sea we manage as comanagers. Laws have been written into that act that the tribes will be at the table whenever there

is a decision to be made on our resource. That is very good legislation that came from the U.S. Congress.

We, as Indian people throughout our Nation, have to come to the

U.S. Congress to ask for our funding, to ask for help, to ask that
3

the United States continue its trust responsibility to protect our

treaties and all of our way of life and our culture throughout our

country. We have to come to Congress. We do every year, several

times a year we come and we tell you what we are doing. We are

responsible and accountable throughout the Nation, and we work

together with the U.S. Congress, as well as the Federal Government and the States and the local governments.

People have a different view sometimes about Indian people. It

is not a good view. It is a bad view. They think we are the boogeymen. That is getting better in my time. I am now 72 years old. I

have been coming back to Congress for the past 30-some years and

reporting. I have seen a big difference in our Nation. I have seen

a very positive move in Indian tribes. I really feel good when I visit

Indian tribes in their country throughout our Nation they are flourishing with life and education. Very positive things are happening

in our communities.

I see our children growing. I see them being educated. We might

have a lot of problems on our reservations, but we have an infrastructure to meet these problems now it is very important for all

of us to have that strong infrastructure—the science, the policy and

the legal issues, our court systems and all of that.

So we are moving to a place in time where our tribes are looking

good, as I say. So in the next day or two, you are going to hear

our negatives and our positives, but you are going to hear us tell

the story of our lives and our culture and how we think of our natural world out here. We have to be part of the management of our

country, the tribes. We have to be partners with the Federal Government, partners with the States, partners with the local governments, and partners with the cities and the communities and the

volunteers.

If we can do that and have the backing of the U.S. Congress

through legislation, we are going to be all right. We are going to

be helpful in many, many ways.

Thank you.

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

Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much, Mr. Frank. It is always

good to see you with us, Billy. I hope all is well with you.

Mr. FRANK. Thank you.

Senator INOUYE. And now may I call upon the representatives of

the Tulalip Tribes, Terry Williams; of the Nooksack Tribe, Bob

Kelly; and of the Quinault Indian Nation, Ed Johnstone.

Mr. Williams.

STATEMENT OF TERRY WILLIAMS, TULALIP TRIBES

Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my

name is Terry Williams from the Tulalip Tribes. With me is Bob

Kelly from the Nooksack and Ed Johnstone from the Quinault. It

is indeed a pleasure today to be able to be here, and to respond to

the requests that you have made, the inquiries on the fish and

wildlife in the Northwest.

We will be submitting written testimony, and the written testimony will more than likely be more direct and identify the issues

surrounding our discussion. Since we only have a limited amount
4

of time, I will try to hit the highlights of what you will read in our

testimony.

The Pacific Northwest management of fish and wildlife over the

years more recently has been guided by Supreme Court decisions.

With those decisions, they have given us some direction in terms

of how we structure ourselves in the co-management process with

the State of Washington and our behavior and management with

the Federal agencies.

Currently, though, we are going well beyond the directives of the

court, having to deal with other issues—issues such as shellfish

management, groundfish, wildlife, hatcheries and hatchery reform,

dealing with environmental issues; environmental issues including

the Clean Water Act and responsibilities that we have in our management to observe not only the laws, but the importance of having

clean water for all of our resources.

The tribes have clearly established themselves in the governmental role in this process. We have incorporated not only a new

direction in management, but bringing in new technologies to help

us deal with the problems that face us.

Some of the issues we have been working through over the last

decade have been that of management within the Pacific Salmon

Treaty under the treaty with the United States and Canada; participating in the Pacific Fisheries Management Council; participating with the Federal agencies and the State on Endangered Species

Act issues; development of shellfish and groundfish co-management

programs.

An example of what I just talked about are areas where we are

lacking in terms of our ability, both in structure, in regulatory

processes and in funding, is the groundfish, for example, with our

coastal tribes from Quinault, Quileute, Hoh, Makah—those tribes

that participate in ground fish are trying to continue and keep up

with the Federal and State managers and trying to establish good

management as we have with salmon, but without the resources.

Some of the activities include hiring of port samplers, setting up

observers on the ships; management and enforcement issues; plan

development—we have to have management plans for all of our

fisheries, including the ability to develop regulations. That is quite

an expensive and difficult and time-consuming process. We are trying to do that off of a shoestring budget, which has been difficult,

to say the least.

Another example is that of the shellfish. Bob Kelly and I belong

to tribes that are participating in the shellfish management, after

the recent court decision reinstating the management obligations

that we have always had, and that is to look after and manage

those resources in a way that supports our culture and our economies for the long term.

In shellfish, we have to look at doing the management plans, the

beach surveys. We have to deal with access issues with landowners, health and safety and things that hit the market, and enforcement, as in all other fisheries. These types of programs, again,

are being developed by the tribes with limited budgets and limited

support in terms of authorization and definitions in co-management. So we are looking for the ability to continue doing these

types of programs in a way that is constructive.
5

And, as always, we develop our plans based on scientific approaches in developing our regulations. Part of the development we

have looked at are the rules and guidelines based on the secretarial

order that we participated in developing. Tribes are currently also

developing recovery plans for salmon as well as other species.

In looking at what kind of technologies we have to provide information to us, we have a couple of programs dealing with databases

that we rely on. One is the salmon and steelhead stock inventory

that gives us an idea of the health of the species. The other is the

salmon and steelhead habitat inventory assessments project that

gives us the habitat information that the health of the species is

based on. These are planning tools. We bring these planning tools

into other processes such as the shared strategy process in Western

Washington. That process is one that we helped to develop, bringing in tribal, Federal, State and local governments in salmon recovery.

Development of recovery plans is challenging, and many times,

we are not in sync with the Federal agencies or State agencies in

finding the balance that works for us. One of the concerns is that

the Federal agencies such as the National Marine Fisheries Service

is sometimes looking at the fisheries in a more stringent manner

than they do at the habitat issues that produce those fish. So we

are trying to set up ways of evaluating the differences in that balance, and demonstrating that our actions are significant in the

management we take.

One of the things I think helps to point that out is with the

coastal funds that are sent from Congress to the Northwest, to the

States and to the tribes. In a recent assessment of the expenditure

of those funds, it was clear that it was the tribes that were taking

the lead role in looking at research and monitoring and developing

an understanding of what is actually impacting these stocks and

how to deal with that.

The tribes have built a strong direction in management, but as

Billy said, we do not want to lose in our management what is near

and dear to us, and that is our culture. As we look at all of these

species, we are always reminded that our culture is based on the

utilization of species of many different types, for spiritual and economic ways of life. We have tried to lead the way for Federal and

State agencies by developing strong research and management

principles to stabilize fish and wildlife populations, to stabilize our

culture.

We have helped raise the standard of the management in the

Northwest, and raise the standard for the future of our people. The

treaties with the tribes created an obligation by the United States

to assure the continuation of our culture and practices. Without

specific actions to sustain these species in a way that allows us to

utilize them, we are very concerned that our treaty rights will be

eroded. Many species we used to utilize in our culture are now

gone, and some are present in such low abundance that they cannot support tribal traditions.

We are seeking reinforcement of self-determination; of government-to-government processes, co-management programs, where

we have adequate decisionmaking; adequate funding to implement
6

the programs that we have developed; and adequate environmental

protection of the species that we are dependent upon.

We also need stronger tribal enforcement to enable us the ability

for better management of our individual areas; and especially continued research. In looking at inventorying species that we utilize,

currently even though we are highly engaged in the management

of fish and wildlife, we are not prepared or can we even deal with

evaluating or inventorying all of the species that are important to

us in sustaining our people.

In summary, I think what I would like to say is that we are looking for an institutional process that brings authorization for statutory and regulatory programs that reinvigorate and support the

tribes strongly. We appreciate the time that you have given us.

Thank you.

Senator INOUYE. I thank you very much, Mr. Williams.

Mr. Kelly.

Mr. KELLY. I am here to answer any questions you may have,

Senator.

Senator INOUYE. Mr. Johnstone.

Mr. JOHNSTONE. The same.

Senator INOUYE. Mr. Williams spoke of the high-tech equipment

that is available now to you that would determine whether the

habitat of the stock is healthy. Can you tell me whether in the last

50 years, stocks have increased or diminished in your area of concern?

Mr. WILLIAMS. That is a difficult question to answer. The abundance of salmon has somewhat varied. If you look at what we have

identified in the past as three of the more critical issues that we

face, one is the fishery itself, looking coast-wide at Alaska, Canada,

and the lower 48 and how we manage those, and through the Pacific Salmon Treaty, we have rearranged those fisheries to allow

better escapements, and I think we are seeing that now. Another

issue is the ocean conditions, and the survival rate of the juveniles

and the adults in the ocean. The third is predominantly land use

or habitat issues.

With the advent of the salmon treaty and the changes we have

seen an increase of fisheries returning to our watersheds because

of the lowered fisheries that are now generated by the two countries. We have seen some improvement in ocean conditions, which

may be temporal, which has allowed some increases to our watershed. The land use issues, the environmental is slow, and it is one

that is to us more significant in the ability to keep the populations

at a sustainable rate for harvestable levels.

So I think in answering that, we have seen some improvements

from our management, but I think for the long term, we are not

there yet. We still have a significant way to go in looking at the

environmental problems that we are going to need to resolve.

Senator INOUYE. Does anyone want to add something?

Mr. JOHNSTONE. I think in the oceans, for us, the groundfish

issues out in the ocean are an emerging fishery for us. The tools

that we are developing are tools that are to be developed. The comment that I would have on behalf of the coastal tribes and the

Quinault Indian Nation is we know certain things about the

science, but we need the ability to be an active participant in this
7

process. We are working with the Federal agencies to try to get on

the same funding level of the funding streams as States, for instance. It is very difficult for tribes, some of the money that does

exist that passes through is not easily accessible by the tribes. So

we need to develop those tools. We are working hand in hand with

the science, but we are really stretched. As Terry said earlier, we

are basically taking our basic fish management dollars through

United States v. Washington and making them stretch. There have

not been any funds available to any great degree to really assist

us in development of our fish management on the coast in these

groundfish fisheries.

Mr. KELLY. I am from the Nooksack Tribe. In the Nooksack

basin, our recovery efforts are focused on chinook salmon. For the

past 20 years, the two tribes within the basin have not harvested

on those stocks for over 20 years. The positive side to that is that

local governments have now stepped up because of VSA and are

working with the local tribes to try to turn that around. The tribes

have basically provided a leadership role in that they provide the

glue that allows the local governments, the State agencies, as well

as the Federal agencies to all sit down at the table to try to come

up with solutions.

So I think if you look at some of the hatchery stocks, they have

sustained at harvestable levels. Some have not, so it really depends

where you take your snapshot.

Mr. FRANK. Senator, we talk about our tribes in our areas, but

we are talking about the tribes throughout the Nation. We have

reservations. We are not going anywhere. We can’t go anywhere.

That is our management area. We have use of the custom fishing

areas or hunting areas throughout our country. We cannot travel

any further than that. Along the Pacific Ocean, as Ed was just saying, we have designated areas. We do not go to California. We do

not go to Oregon. We stay in that designated area that our treaty

has, the boundary of our treaty that goes out into the ocean, whereas other fishermen come up into our areas and take fish and

leave—other non-Indian fisheries.

So we have to manage our areas, and we do. That is what we

are talking about. We need that capability of managing and working with other fishermen, as well as the States throughout our

country.

Senator INOUYE. Of the fish harvested, about what percentage

would be for personal consumption or tribal consumption, and what

percent for commercial consumption?

Mr. WILLIAMS. That is a tough one. I would need to go back.

Each tribe is individual, of course, based on population and area,

but by and large the commercial activities in the past have been

the predominant of the catch. More recently, because of the low

abundance of salmon available, it would be hard to estimate right

now, but I would guess that the consumption side is a much higher

percentage now because people are keeping what they can for food

resources, rather than selling. Market conditions have had some effect on that as well.

If I could, though, I wanted to mention one other thing—your

question about the new technologies. It occurred to me that another

thing that might be important to answer in that is, with the tribes
8

in the State of Washington, when it came to looking at the decline

of the salmon, we initiated in the State the first watershed planning process that the State eventually adopted. We also initiated

the development of watershed assessment methodology that not

only the State has developed now, but the Federal Government

through the U.S. Forest Services uses the same methodology.

We also developed the fisheries models programs that established the abundance and management of our stocks, to the point

that we were told that because of those models, that is what helped

secure the United States–Canada treaty when that was signed in

1985, because we had the data in the way to document the impacts.

Since then in all of our management, we have been on the cutting edge of developing the new technologies and instruments for

management that are guiding us now in all of our management.

Senator INOUYE. Does the treaty say anything about who is responsible for research?

Mr. WILLIAMS. No; not specifically.

Senator INOUYE. Do you have any assistance from the U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service or NOAA?

Mr. WILLIAMS. In some cases, yes. We work pretty closely with

National Marine Fisheries Service and NOAA on a lot of the research projects, and actually receive grants in some cases. Fish and

Wildlife, we do some work with them and grants as well, but I

would guess there is probably right now more from NOAA.

Senator INOUYE. Do you think you have enough research to back

up your enterprise?

Mr. WILLIAMS. Definitely not. That was what I was saying at the

end of my talk. In terms of the research and inventories, there is

still a lot of work to be done to be able to, again, identify what it

takes to sustain a culture by utilizing these species. We just do not

have that information.

Senator INOUYE. Who do you think has the responsibility of conducting such research?

Mr. WILLIAMS. My direct response would be the United States.

As we look at the United States and its many arms, we have National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Army Corps, Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service. There are so

many different aspects of the impacts that it takes a broad array

of Federal agencies to support getting that information that is necessary.

Senator INOUYE. Your management of fishery resources is carried

out under a government-to-government relationship based upon a

treaty. Have there been violations of this treaty?

Mr. WILLIAMS. We have certainly had violations I think even

today. The violations are not as blatant as they were in the past.

What we are finding now is a lot of it comes down to choices in

allocations of species. To our tribes, our belief is that the treaties,

as the Constitution states, the treaties are supreme law of the

land. To us, it means that we are a first priority. In many cases

with the Federal agencies, we are not the first priority. Many other

areas have become, like in the State of Washington, with the agencies negotiating habitat conservation plans. Forestry and agriculture, and then development have become more of a priority than
9

the tribes, which to us puts us at risk, and a risk that we should

not have to bear.

Senator INOUYE. I am embarrassed to tell you this, but I have

not seen those treaties. Do you have copies of those treaties so that

the committee and staff can study these treaties?

Mr. WILLIAMS. We do not have them with us in person, but we

can certainly get those to you, the ones that are important to us.

Senator INOUYE. We would appreciate that.

Mr. WILLIAMS. They are also on line. We can give you the addresses of how to access that.

Senator INOUYE. Because in order to better determine the role

that the U.S. Government should assume or has promised to assume, we would like to see what the treaty says.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Certainly, as all of us in Indian country have

grown up and gone into the different types of professions that we

all do, our parents and our ancestors have taught us to look at

those treaties closely. We do understand them, and we hope that

we can help articulate our perspective on those with you.

Senator INOUYE. Gentlemen, I thank you all very much. If we

may, we would like to send questions to you of a more complicated

nature once we read your treaties.

Mr. WILLIAMS. We would be pleased to work with you.

Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much.

Our next panel consists of the executive director of the Columbia

River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission of Portland, Olney Patt, Jr.;

chairman of the Upper Columbia River United Tribes, Spokane,

WA, Warren Seyler.

Welcome, Mr. Patt.

STATEMENT OF OLNEY PATT, JR., EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

COLUMBIA RIVER INTER-TRIBAL FISH COMMISSION

Mr. PATT. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Vice Chairman, members of the

committee, my name is Olney Patt, Jr. I am the executive director

of the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, serving its

members the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of

Oregon, the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation,

and the Nez Perce Tribe.

I wish to thank the committee for the opportunity to address you

today. In January of this year, our Commission had the pleasure

of hosting the Tribal Fisheries Co-management Symposium in Portland, OR. Many of the tribal organizations here today attended

that gathering, as well as staff from this committee. We are

pleased that this hearing is in large part inspired by and modeled

upon the symposium.

I am here today to speak to you about our Commission’s development, successes and challenges, and voice the member tribes’ support for the development and introduction of legislation supporting

Indian fish and wildlife management. The time has come.

One creature, more than any other, exemplifies the pride and

perseverance of our people. We call him Wy-Kan-Ush. He is our

brother salmon, and this bond, this sacred relationship between

land, water, salmon and ourselves has unified, stabilized and hum-
10

bled the people, providing countless centuries of health, prosperity

and well-being.

Holding onto this relationship has been a struggle, no less profound than the American struggle for civil rights, human dignity

and equality. While the treaties contain noble words, alone they

were not sufficient to govern those driven by land acquisition,

hoarding of water rights, and an overall dominion over nature.

Since 1855 when our treaties were signed, the reserved rights

therein have repeatedly been tested. The treaties were violated

when a fish-wheel operator attempted to bar Indian fishermen from

crossing his land, but the U.S. Supreme Court in 1905 and 1919

ruled in two cases that the Yakama fishermen had the right to

cross land to access their fishing sites. The treaties were violated

when the State of Washington said the Indian fishermen would

have to obtain State licenses to exercise their treaty rights, but in

1942 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the State could not require

fishermen to pay license fees. The treaties were violated when the

State of Washington insisted the treaties reserve no rights not enjoyed by non-treaty fishermen, and under the instruction of the

State Attorney General Slade Gorton in defiance of a Federal court

order, issued discriminatory fishing regulations. But the U.S. Supreme Court in 1978 ruled the treaty language secured the tribes

a right to harvest a share of each run that passes through tribal

fishing areas.

Though the courts ruled in the tribes’ favor, States continued to

find ways to circumvent these rulings, while the population of

salmon, steelhead, lamprey and sturgeon and the region’s other

resident and migratory fish species continued to decline. Tribal

fishermen decided to take matters into their own hands, and tribal,

State and Federal Government leaders took notice. Tribal elected

leaders whose duties included protecting treaty fishing rights, recognized that court rulings were not the sole answer to implementing the treaties. A broader intergovernmental approach was needed

to deal with the myriad negative impacts on salmon runs that the

governments could address through rules, regulations and other

legal processes.

There was a particular need to address mitigation for hydropower impacts on salmon and the general status of the runs which

in the late 1970’s were under study for endangered species status.

In response to these problems and under the authority of the

newly passed Indian Self-Determination Act, the tribes resolved to

form the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, to ensure

a unified voice in the overall management of the fisheries resource.

The Commission is comprised of the Fish and Wildlife Committees

established by each governing body and acts by consensus.

In the years following the Commission’s 1977 formation, the addition of biologists, hydrologists, attorneys, enforcement personnel

and public information specialists have increased its collective capacity. These professionals help the Commission carryout its purpose by providing expert testimony, scientific analysis, and in general meaningful participation in the many governmental processes

affecting treaty resources. The Commission and its staff have assisted in establishing on-reservation fisheries programs that implement on-the-ground salmon restoration efforts in Columbia tribu-
11

taries, including the Yakama, Umatilla, Clearwater, and Warm

Springs Rivers.

These successful recovery programs, combined with the Commission’s core research and analysis, as well as the centralized enforcement effort, put the tribes in a key fisheries management role that

has grown and evolved during the past quarter century. Though

the Federal district court in Oregon still retains jurisdiction over

United States. v. Oregon, the crucial court case still guiding the basin’s treaty fisheries, the tribes through the Commission and tribal

fisheries programs participate in every intergovernmental process

on the river affecting water quality, fisheries management, habitat

protection and mitigation.

The Commission has initiated or participated in many local, national and international agreements to restore and recover salmon

in the basin. They include the Pacific Salmon Treaty between the

United States and Canada, ratified in 1985; the fish and wildlife

provisions of the Regional Power Act of 1980, resulting in expenditures of more than $1 billion for salmon protection, mitigation and

enhancement during the last 15 years; the 1996 Federal memorandum of understanding among relevant Federal agencies to coordinate salmon recovery; the Columbia River Fish Management Plan

of 1988 that allocated salmon harvests among the tribes and the

States of Oregon, Washington and Idaho; and the Columbia Basin

Law Enforcement Coordinating Committee, initiated in the early

1980’s.

Having a seat at the table has furnished the States and Federal

Government with the tribal perspective on the salmon resource,

but key decisions still need to be made on important factors responsible for salmon’s decline in the basin. Though many hope that endangered species protection would assist the restoration effort, conflicting Federal mandates have limited the effectiveness of Endangered Species Act authority.

In addition, while the tribes have successfully used hatcheries as

a tool to rebuild salmon runs, the controversial State and Federal

practice of mass marking and the failure of meaningful conservation restricts our efforts. Furthermore, while the tribes have developed a well-regulated fishery, the years without commercial harvest have eroded the market for tribal salmon, especially in light

of the proliferation of farm-raised salmon.

These and other challenges are what the Columbia basin’s treaty

fishing tribes are facing. But the tribes now have highly capable

fisheries programs and an intergovernmental agency that can act

under the authority of treaties, the supreme law of the land, to protect tribal sovereignty and resources. With this capacity and these

challenges, I reiterate the time has come for a strengthened relationship with Congress through Indian fish and wildlife management legislation.

On behalf of our member tribes, I thank you again for this opportunity. The Commission’s individual tribal members will provide

additional materials for the record. We look forward to your questions.

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

Senator INOUYE. Mr. Seyler.
12

STATEMENT OF WARREN SEYLER, CHAIRMAN, UPPER

COLUMBIA UNITED TRIBES

Mr. SEYLER. Thank you, Senator, chairman, honorable committee

members. Thank you for the opportunity to provide a snapshot of

the fish and wildlife management activities of the Upper Columbia

United Tribes.

My name is Warren Seyler. I am tribal councilman for the Spokane Tribe of Indians, and chairman of the Upper Columbia United

Tribes, this inter-tribal organization.

Also present with me is Gary Aitken, chairman of the Kootenai

Tribe of Indians, who is in the audience, and his vice chairman of

the UCUT Tribes. Also joining me today in the audience is Greg

Abrahamson, the vice chairman of the Spokane Tribe of Indians.

The five member tribes of UCUT, as we are called, are the Coeur

d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, the Colville Confederated Tribes, the

Kalispel Tribe of Indians, the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho, and the Spokane Tribe of Indians.

Today, my presentation and what I would like to talk about, differs slightly from some of the other testimony; 40 years ago, with

the building of many of the dams, our salmon was cut off from the

up-river tribes. So our issues tend to be a little different. We manage and we look at resident fisheries, other parts of wildlife. Although we do have endangered species in the up-rivers, our issues

tend to be a little bit different.

Historically, our tribes shared a vast area of aboriginal grounds,

from the present-day western Montana to the Cascades of Washington, and from the Canadian border to Oregon. Today, we proudly retain management and input into many of the responsibilities

over approximately 450 miles of waterways, which include approximately 40 interior lakes, 30 dams and reservoirs. All of this falls

within the 14 million acres of our aboriginal territories of the combined tribes.

Our current tribal reservations are used to store the water for

the BPA’s two major dams, Chief Joseph and Grand Coulee. Grand

Coulee, which is the largest hydropower facility in the United

States, as you will see in the written testimony of the Spokane

Tribe, there are many unresolved and uncompensated issues concerning the impact of the Grand Coulee Dam.

Today, those two reservoirs lie over the top of our reservations.

This gives us many concerns regarding fish and wildlife and other

issues. Every day as UCUT technical staff try to work within the

region, they are asked to make many decisions. In these decisions,

they include looking at the Endangered Species Act, the Northwest

Power Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, the Clean Water

Act. They deal with superfund sites, regional growth, and trying to

develop a relationship with local utilities, counties and other governments, all within our diminishing financial resources. My staff

definitely has its challenges. As shrinking funds continue, the need

and demands on the staff are growing.

Impacts of hydropower facilities have been devastating to the upriver fish and wildlife resources. Both have been in drastic decline

for several decades. As ocean-going salmon were cut off 40 years

ago by Grand Coulee, a complete change to our way of life happened. Other issues that we have to deal with because of this
13

change is having some of the highest levels of diabetes in the country. We continue to strive to get these issues resolved so we can

hopefully put fish back into our people’s diets. Like I said, it is just

not fish and wildlife, but it has impacted our elders and our culture.

Today, UCUT is trying to take a leadership role, and it is a

proactive role, I believe, not trying to remain isolated within our

management activities. We are going out and using personal tribal

dollars and finding dollars wherever we can squeeze them from to

interact with our neighbors, the counties, the country governments,

public and private utilities, and the multiple Federal agencies. We

are trying to be proactive because we feel that if we can give these

other entities the knowledge that we have, they will understand

our programs and the things that we are trying to accomplish, and

build those working relationships to overcome some of the problems

that we have seen over the last multiple years.

Our primary program funding is acquired through the Northwest

Power Planning and Conservation Council, an interstate compact of

the four northwestern States. Recommendations for program funding are proposed by the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority, a body of 13 tribes, 4 States, 2 Federal fish and wildlife agencies. Over the years, UCUT tribes have I believe taken the forefront in trying to resolve some of the regional issues and bringing

all these entities together. Today, we still struggle to do that.

Each of UCUT’s five member tribes depends almost entirely on

Federal funding to manage fish, wildlife and habitats. Rate-payer

funding from Bonneville Power Administration is an obligation to

mitigate for the impacts of the hydropower systems, but additional

congressional appropriations are needed to address the many endangered species, the Clean Water Act, and the National Historic

Preservation Act, and other Federal statutory responsibilities.

We implore this committee to be very assertive on our behalf to

ensure the funds are there for us to continue our efforts in the fish

and wildlife programs. We feel that the money is very well spent,

just due to our innovative and striving needs that our technical

staff do go through. As I said, we are taking a proactive and aggressive interaction to try to meet with public and county utilities.

As for UCUT itself, let me take this opportunity to raise the committee’s awareness to our organization’s great need. Considering

the geographic area that I have described, our brother organizations, the Northwest Indian Fisheries and the Columbia River

Inter-Tribal Fisheries, which have endangered species, they tend to

get a lot of coverage and a lot of voice. Unfortunately for the resident fisheries of the Upper Columbia United Tribes, although we

do have endangered species in the Kootenai region, the burbot and

the white sturgeon, we tend to be overlooked many times because

we do not have the name ‘‘salmon’’ attached to us.

So I guess our need is funding, because we operate the five tribes

organization, and split between four tribes and the office itself on

a budget of about $300,000. That is divided between the four. Compared to the other organizations around the country, we have two

staff members that cover the four States, so I just look for review

on this.
14

Before I conclude, I would like to draw the committee’s attention

to the written testimony of the Spokane Tribe. It focuses on what

we have learned as a result of the BPA and the dealings that we

have had with them for the last 15 years. We have seen the financial crisis that they have gone through. This is where many of our

programs get funded. We have tried to analyze that and make recommendations, not just attacking, but making recommendations on

how we feel this organization and the region can benefit from what

we have seen and what we have learned, and trying to turn that

around and make it a positive relationship so they can uphold the

trust responsibility of the U.S. Government.

Again, I appreciate your attention and interest in the fish and

wildlife programs in the Northwest, and take a look at the challenges that we face as we try to improve the fish and wildlife management that is in our area.

Thank you.

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

Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much, Mr. Seyler.

Mr. Patt, I gather from your testimony that since the formation

of your Commission, matters have improved and fishing rights

have been protected. Would that be an accurate statement?

Mr. PATT. I believe it is an ongoing process. Whether or not it

has improved, I would say that the status quo has been maintained.

Senator INOUYE. What sort of relationship do you have with the

Upper Columbia tribes?

Mr. PATT. We interface with the Upper Columbia tribes in the

Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority, and in the Power Act

funding for anadramous, resident and wildlife management in the

Columbia Basin.

Senator INOUYE. You spoke of States trying to circumvent court

decisions and such. Are they still doing that?

Mr. PATT. I believe so, yes. It is an ongoing struggle to maintain

those rights, as I stated. That started back with the fish-wheel operators in the Winans case, and to this day States attempt to require permits to for instance harvest lamprey at our usual and accustomed fishing sites at Willamette Falls on a tributary of the Columbia.

Senator INOUYE. Mr. Seyler, what percentage of tribal income

would fishing consist of?

Mr. SEYLER. Specifically to the fish catch, it is very little. Most

of the revenues come from the public coming to the many streams

and lakes that we have filled. Between the UCUT tribes, we have

four fish hatcheries. We plant throughout our area about 2.5 million fish into the lakes and Lake Roosevelt and the different areas.

So tying the revenues to fish, it comes more from the public coming

in and doing the fishery catching.

Senator INOUYE. Is that a major source of income for tribes?

Mr. SEYLER. It is growing. Lake Roosevelt, which is the largest

body of water, it is about 160 miles of reservoir, there are about

1.5 million visitors to that one lake alone. So it is growing as far

as fisheries, that the public is coming to that lake. The white sturgeon in other areas in the smaller streams up-river of the Upper

Columbia is also growing. As the Coeur d’Alene Tribe and the
15

Kootenai Tribe develop their hatcheries in those areas, it is also

growing within those counties.

Senator INOUYE. So you would say that in all areas, fishing has

expanded?

Mr. SEYLER. I believe up and to the last couple of years where

funding has been stymied to keep the programs going, yes. Unfortunately, what we have seen sometimes is the funding to keep the

hatcheries open in the different areas is questionable at this time.

Our concern is that in order to keep those hatcheries open and to

keep the fish going into the lakes and streams, it is almost each

year we find the need to find ways to retain our biologists and our

wildlife managers, because they fear for their jobs so they are constantly looking because of lack of consistent funding. So turnover

in management abilities within our staff is pretty high, which in

turn relates to the number and quality of hatcheries and fish that

go into the lakes.

Senator INOUYE. Gentlemen, I thank you.

Ms. Murkowski, do you have questions?

Senator MURKOWSKI. No questions, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much.

Mr. SEYLER. Thank you.

Mr. PATT. Thank you.

Senator INOUYE. Our next panel consists of Natural Resources

Department of the Confederated Salish-Kootenai Tribes of Flathead

Reservation, Clayton Matt; the executive director of the Native

American Fish and Wildlife Society of Colorado, Ira New Breast.

Gentlemen, welcome.

Mr. Matt.

STATEMENT OF CLAYTON MATT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, TRIBAL COUNCIL, CONFEDERATED SALISH AND KOOTENAI

TRIBES OF THE FLATHEAD NATION

Mr. MATT. Welcome and good morning. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I am here on behalf of the Federated Salish and Kootenai

Tribes. Our chairman, Fred Matt, had intended on being here.

Thank you for allowing me to sit in his place this morning. As you

are aware, there was a death in our community that he was informed of just prior to his getting on the plane yesterday. I learned

of that upon arriving here, so thank you.

I am honored to provide testimony on the status of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes’ fish and wildlife programs. I

will be brief, because we have also submitted written testimony for

the record.

With the help of Public Law 93–638 and other Federal support

and resources, we have developed an extensive tribal infrastructure

over the years. Our infrastructure not only includes the tribal Natural Resource Department, but a Forestry Department, Health Department, Lands Department, and other enterprises and committees including cultural resource committees. Today under the Natural Resource Department, we are responsible for all of the fish and

wildlife management that was previously provided by the Bureau

of Indian Affairs [BIA] and a majority of that formerly provided by

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
16

We work cooperatively with Federal and State agencies through

contracts and grants and other agreements to ensure our resources

will be protected for seven generations to come. We believe no tribe

does a better job than the Salish and Kootenai Tribes.

For the record, let me state a few examples, two of our better examples. The Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes was the first

to designate a tribal wilderness area by setting aside 92,000 acres.

In addition, within that area is a specially designated grizzly bear

habitat, a program unique in this country, we believe. For 90 days

every year, access to this area is limited even for tribal members.

Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes has a long history of protecting the native bull trout and west slope cutthroat trout, especially from hazards resulting from the BIA’s irrigation system located on the Flathead Reservation.

We went to court to protect stream flows for the fish and other

aquatic wildlife. As a result, the BIA implements in-stream flows

throughout the reservation. We believe that when we protect the

grizzly bear and the bull trout, we protect them not just for the

Federated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, but we protect them for all

Americans.

As a result of another landmark court case, we protect the quality of water in Flathead Lake, the largest natural freshwater lake

west of the Mississippi. We protect it for the purposes of fish, wildlife and other recreation activities. The Salish and Kootenai Tribes

Tribal-State Fishing and Hunting Agreement that resolved 12 year

of litigation is viewed as a model in many ways for others in this

Nation. Our late chairman, Mickey Pablo, and the former Governor, Mark Racicot, hailed this agreement as significant when

they said:

This agreement has shown that by working together, we can continue to enjoy

this magnificent place we call the Flathead Reservation.

In addition to fish and wildlife programs, the Natural Resource

Department manages other programs that benefit the fish and

wildlife. For example, we are proud to operate an air quality program to help ensure a class-one air designation and a water quality

program that regulates water quality according to high tribal water

quality standards. We also operate a water management program

that measures tribal water resources throughout the reservation.

Finally, for us the next logical step for our tribes in fish and

wildlife program management is our proposal to manage the National Bison Range complex through a self-governance agreement

with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in the Department of the

Interior. Since title IV was enacted in 1994 that authorized tribes

to enter into agreements for management of non-BIA programs, we

have been actively pursuing the management of the Bison Range.

The National Bison Range exceeds the criteria in the law that allows us to negotiate for its management. Criteria requires at least

one historic cultural or geographic connection. We are connected to

the National Bison Range by all three criteria.

The National Bison Range is located in the heart of the reservation, on land originally reserved for our tribes by the Hell Gate

Treaty. There are significant cultural sites on the Range, and the

bison herd is descended from a herd originally raised by tribal

members Charles Allard and Michael Pablo.
17

We are beginning negotiations next week and our goal is to have

an agreement signed and forwarded to this committee by July

2003. We urge your support.

Thank you again for this opportunity. I would be happy to answer any questions after this, even now or subsequent to this hearing.

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

Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much, Mr. Matt.

I now recognize Mr. New Breast.

STATEMENT OF IRA NEW BREAST, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

NATIVE AMERICAN FISH AND WILDLIFE SOCIETY

Mr. NEW BREAST. Good morning, Senator. Thank you for hearing

us here today.

My name is Ira New Breast, the executive director of the Native

American Fish and Wildlife Society. I am also an enrolled member

of the Blackfeet Tribe, neighbors to the Salish and Kootenai.

I am here today to speak of and to support development of the

Native American Fish and Wildlife Management Act. What we

would like to present to the committee here today is just a little

background on the Society. We are a 21-year-old organization that

was established by tribal fisheries and wildlife biologists, law enforcement officers, leaders, planners and administrators and fish

and wildlife technicians.

Throughout that time, we have had the opportunity to hear

many of the issues that surround Indian country in regards to fish

and wildlife. During that time, through our intrinsic relationship

with the various members of the tribes and tribal fish and wildlife

programs throughout the country, we have been able to reflect on

many of the issues that they face today and in the past. So we are

here today to highlight some of those issues.

Frequently, the tribes of course speak of the Federal trust responsibility. This is something that is a legal duty on the part of

the United States to protect Indian land and resources, fulfill treaty, congressional agreement and executive order obligations, and

carry out mandates of Federal and judicial law for the benefit of

American Indians and Alaska Natives. This is no less than the

international and domestic duties that the United States faces.

Congress’ highest trade exemplifies the good American conscience. Tribes rely on your honest willingness to champion and

bond your actions to the edicts of this land, but also to rest your

fortitude on the words of good intent. In this era of expanding

international leadership and responsibilities for the country, what

better way to build international confidence than by demonstrating

excellence in the overall treatment of indigenous domestic

sovereigns? In the face of mounting energy and resource use and

to address solutions, express an example of the best commitment

to the environment by enacting this legislation, which ensures

quality standards and the integrity of management for present and

future resource needs.

Indian country’s interest in the environment is embodied, inherent and evident. Our fellow Americans dearly share this interest in

their own values.
18

Protection of the trust resources is the cornerstone of the Indian

trust responsibility. Typically, that is met through the Self-Determination Education Assistance Act of 1993. Tribes typically utilize

that avenue in order to gain their funding and to raise their capacity of management programs for their fish and wildlife offices.

Within the last 5 years, this funding has shrunk 20 percent. So we

look to the development of this legislation to help offset and renew

and reinvigorate tribal efforts to try and manage their own resources.

Some of the compelling difficulties of the tribes as they struggle

to develop and sustain their own wildlife programs have to do with

the wide assortment of Federal conservation programs which largely fail to include tribes as eligible to participate. Two shining examples is the Federal aid program, commonly known as the PittmanRobertson, Dingell-Johnson and Wallop-Breaux programs. The proceeds from those excise taxes are approximately $450 million annually to the States, territories, and District of Columbia. Native

American populations, Indian land masses and Indian water bodies

are used to inflate formula factors that decide allocations, and Native Americans pay the taxes. Taxation without representation

plays a role here.

Tribes understand the burden that States face in trying to manage their fish and wildlife resources, tribes understand this. Equity

at the cost of the resource is not our strategy or intent. Rather, we

call attention to the unfair injustice and await our trusted leaders

resolve. In addition, as an example, the Endangered Species Act,

section six, is absent of language affording tribes the means or capacity to manage their resident endangered species or species of

concern. Over 30 ESA animal species and numerous plant species

fall within the jurisdictions of the tribe. Current Federal agency resources fall short of filling the management gap need and more

than often play an obstructive compliance role in economic development activities of poverty-stressed tribes. The proposed legislation

would offset these shortfalls and ensure the integrity of the resource designed for protection and management.

Another important issue that our members speak of again and

again is the encroachment of States on the jurisdictions of tribes

in all areas of government activity, which also includes fish and

wildlife authority. The tribes look to you, the Congress, to preserve

and fairly protect our interests. The factors leading to State infringement on tribal lands and interests are many. At the core is

a misled understanding of the funding process and allocations, in

addition to a long history of misunderstanding and subjugation of

Indian culture and society, and a failure to embrace and acknowledge the special trust commitment made by this country’s great

forefathers and their contemporaries.

It is erroneous for State leaders and State civil employees to assume that their attempt to have controlling authority over Indian

lands will bring about solutions that will satisfy State citizenry, the

State taxpayers. Any new burden of authority for the States on Indian lands will be paid for by the State residents in taxes. States

easily overlook the special relationship Native Americans have

with the law of the land. Congress, your constituents, know that
19

their State governments are leading them down this one-way endless financial road of commitment.

It is in the American people’s interest to protect Native American

and Alaska Native interests from States’ unfair encroachment. One

demonstrated method is to enact the Native American Fish and

Wildlife Management Act and ensure tribes’ capacity to manage

the resource for the benefit of the environment and all American

people.

Federal Indian lands reservations comprise about 55 million or

56 million acres, a number in-between there. Alaska Native lands

comprise another 45 million acres. Ceded usual and accustomed

areas comprise another 38 million lands in the United States. That

amounts to the fifth largest State in the United States.

Indian tribes function as distinct and unique governmental, political, social and cultural entities operating on a government-to-government basis nationally and internationally. The language describing a treaty, congressional legislation, agreements, executive

orders, Supreme Court statutes is unique to each tribe and molds

the governing nature of each individual tribe’s distinctive system of

governance and authority. The contemporary culture of each tribe

is autonomous today as it was in the past, distinctive and independent.

Indian reservation lands are diverse in habitat and represent

many of the fish and wildlife species that naturally occur in the

United States. Many species listed within the Endangered Species

Act and many species of special concern are present throughout Indian country. The various habitats that support the game populations are extensive and persistent in a pristine state throughout

most of Indian country.

Stressed economies at poverty levels have had the effect of safeguarding the habitat against development and destruction. As a result, an extensive fauna presence can be found throughout Indian

lands.

One role of the proposed legislation is to further encourage the

establishment and continuation of fish and wildlife codes and programs. Of the 557 federally recognized tribes, from the whole spectrum there are tribes that do not have fish and wildlife programs,

to tribes such as the Salish and Kootenai that have outstanding

programs. Under the act, this measure of legislation would look to

fill that gap in equity among Indian country, of needy tribes that

dearly want and wish to emplace programs of fish and wildlife

management for the benefit of their people in the future, but are

unable to for a host of economic and political and obviously funding

reasons. We look to this measure to try and shore up that end of

the sector of Indian country in regards to fish and wildlife.

Among the challenges tribes face, they must contend with two

common misconceptions. One is that tribes are federally funded

throughout their needs, and the other is that Indian casinos serve

every tribe and their needs. This is not true. Tribal fish and wildlife management needs are straightforward. Fundamentally, they

are a combination of capable personnel supported by sufficient resource capital, driven by a clear objective and purpose that encourages the affected public and governing body to embrace and sup-
20

port the best interests of all current and future aspects of the fish

and wildlife resource.

The tribes’ needs are many, from training to education to marketing services, internally and externally. There are miscellaneous

needs, simple gasoline and maintenance, bullet-proof vests; 37

tribes border international borders, but yet are not looked upon to

be incorporated within the homeland security system. Many of our

areas have game wardens out there in these areas, and they are

the only line of defense, yet they are untrained and they are

unlooked for to support and participate equitably in the homeland

defense schemes that are being proposed.

A comprehensive fish and wildlife data inventory and survey of

biodiversity and human resources in Indian country is a crucial

need to assess and measure achievements in target areas for maximum effect. In addition, the Inter-Tribal Bison Coop has asked me

to mention programs that facilitate Indian bison conservation and

management is dearly needed. Tribes see buffalo as a fundamental

wild resource basic to contemporary existence and among the cumulative fishery and wildlife needs of tribes.

The Native American Fish and Wildlife Management Act is a

long-awaited measure that will conscript funding and impart legal

processes to tribes as they realize development and sustainable fish

and wildlife conservation for the benefit of the resource and the

benefit of Indian country and the United States.

Tribes rely on the strength of Congress to exercise legislative authority to ensure natural resource interests and to protect tribes

from unjust exterior pressures and eliminate disparities. Where do

we go if you cannot prevail for us? Much of our hope and ways of

life to enjoy our natural destinies dutifully rest with this body.

Thank you, Senator.

[Prepared statement of Mr. New Breast appears in appendix.]

Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much, Mr. New Breast, because

I think your testimony will be very helpful if the committee decides

to proceed with the bill that we failed to pass the last time. We are

now looking at a successor bill, and the testimony that has been

presented here will be very helpful.

As a matter of curiosity, Mr. Matt, are you in the grizzly and

bison business?

Mr. MATT. We are trying to get into the bison business, yes.

Senator INOUYE. How many grizzlies are there in your tribal

area?

Mr. MATT. It changes from year to year. They have a wide range

of area, and could range anywhere from 1 dozen to 15 or 20 in any

given moment.

Senator INOUYE. Are they on the endangered list?

Mr. MATT. They are listed, yes.

Senator INOUYE. And what of the bison herd?

Mr. MATT. Our bison herd—well, the bison herd is healthy. The

bison herd that is on the Flathead, of course, is on the National

Bison Range currently managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service. As I mentioned at the end of my remarks, we are just beginning to enter into negotiations with the Fish and Wildlife Service hopefully to manage the Bison Range in the near future.
21

Senator INOUYE. You manage that, but you also market that do

you not?

Mr. MATT. Excuse me, no, we do not manage the National Bison

Range, and no, we do not market bison. We do not have a bison

herd at Flathead. We would like to be able to manage the National

Bison Range and are very excited about the opportunity to negotiate with the Fish and Wildlife Service to do so. We are beginning

negotiations next weekend and hope to have a settlement with

them very soon.

Senator INOUYE. What is the potential outcome of your negotiations?

Mr. MATT. The potential is great. I think it we are always very

optimistic about these opportunities. We tried to do this a few

years ago. It fell through. I think a number of people have mentioned a lot of the difficulties that many tribes have in trying to

deal with these issues, these organizations. I think Ira mentioned

the political misconceptions. Certainly, there are political misconceptions about tribal management issues at Flathead, and those

tend to get overwhelming for people at times. But we have a new

year, a new opportunity for us. We are taking a fresh approach,

and we have some people that we are negotiating with that are

very interested in seeing this succeed, and we are interested in seeing this succeed. Certainly, we have the capability of seeing this

through, so we would like to be able to do that.

Senator INOUYE. Have you experienced some of the problems that

Mr. New Breast cited?

Mr. MATT. Probably. We do not border Canada for example, but

in terms of when he was mentioning bullet-proof vests, I think

while we should not need them, I think we see those kinds of

issues as issues we deal with both on-reservation and regionally

throughout our aboriginal territory because there is always conflict

in our area, simply because of the misconceptions and the

misperceptions and the historical relationships between the community and the tribal people and tribal governments, cities, counties and the State. So some of that does exist today, but we are

working very hard to try to overcome that, and I think probably

one of the best ways we can overcome that is to continue to get

your support, this committee’s support, congressional support for

developing many of the programs that we talked about. If we can

continue to do that, lay a solid foundation for the future, we can

have something to turn over to our kids and our grandkids.

Senator INOUYE. Senator Murkowski.

Senator MURKOWSKI. Mr. New Breast, your comment about

homeland security, when I was up in Alaska this week, I heard the

same comment or a similar comment about the tribes not being involved with the homeland security efforts. I would ask you if you

have a specific message that we could deliver to Secretary Ridge?

Mr. NEW BREAST. Typically, what I understand is being proposed

is that the homeland security dollars will go out to the FEMA offices within the State. So it is another case where tribes are mandated to go through the State in order to receive their Federal

funding, which is not a scenario that tribes like to be entered into.

From State to State, they experience different results. Some States

may have very complicated application processes that is difficult for
22

a tribe to meet. Other States are working very closely with their

tribes to facilitate and help them in their needs as they approach

the State for those type of funds.

Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much, gentlemen.

Mr. NEW BREAST. Thank you, Senator.

Mr. MATT. Thank you.

Senator INOUYE. Before we proceed, I have a statement for the

record submitted by Senator Maria Cantwell. Senator Cantwell regrets that she cannot be with us today. Without objection, the

statement will be made part of the record.

[Referenced document appears in appendix.]

Senator INOUYE. Our next panel consists of the following: Policy

Analyst, Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Commission, James E.

Zorn; the executive director of the 1854 Authority of Duluth, Minnesota, Millard J. ‘‘Sonny’’ Myers; and Jon Cooley, interim executive director, Southwest Tribal Fisheries Commission.

Welcome, gentlemen.

Mr. Zorn, may we begin with you.

STATEMENT OF JAMES E. ZORN, POLICY ANALYST, GREAT

LAKES INDIAN FISH AND WILDLIFE COMMISSION

Mr. ZORN. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. On behalf of our 11-member Ojibwe Tribes in the Lake Superior Region, northern Wisconsin, the U.P. of Michigan, and

northeastern part of Minnesota, thank you for allowing us to be

here today.

On a personal note, if I may wish my daughter Rachel a happy

15th birthday today. I would like to do that on the record. I will

see you tonight, Rachel.

We have submitted rather extensive written testimony to help

provide part of the record that the committee might use in helping

to talk to the other members of Congress about tribal natural resource programs. So we will let that stand.

Today, what we would like to do is just highlight a few of the

themes that we think you will hear today, and that are illustrated

by the types of programs that we and our member tribes do with

regard to their treaty rights, which really as you heard from other

witnesses, are intended to sustain the rhythm of nature, the

rhythm of a people, of a culture; to sustain a people through the

exercise of sovereign authority and prerogatives in the area of natural resource harvest regulation and management.

After all, for our member tribes, as we try to show in our written

testimony, ecological sustainability equals Ojibwe sustainability.

The ties to nature are just that close. Virtually all of the resources

in the ceded territory are used in one part of Ojibwe life, in one

way or another, whether it is for a naming ceremony; whether it

is for medicine; whether it is to eat; perhaps a little economic gain;

certainly in religion and culture.

So one of the themes that we would like to highlight today is

that there is just more than fish and wildlife involved. The hearing

today is on the status of fish and wildlife programs. At least in our

area and for our member tribes, wild plants also are very important. Let’s look at wild rice for example. An important part of the

Ojibwe migration story as you move from east to west is that ‘‘you
23

shall continue to move until you find the food that grows on the

water.’’ That is wild rice in our region for our member tribes. It is

important as a food source, important as a cultural resource. In

many ways, just as you hear reference to the salmon people, the

Ojibwe in many respects are wild rice people.

Wild rice is ecologically important. Many species, in particular

the migratory water fowl that fly from Canada down to the Gulf

of Mexico, rely on wild rice for their diet. So wild rice illustrates

that when we talk about tribal programs, it is more than fish and

wildlife. It is a wide range of plants for medicinal purposes, religious purpose, food sources and so on.

The other thing about wild rice that is intriguing is that it illustrates traditional regulatory systems within at least the Ojibwe

culture, and we are confident that is the case throughout the country. Wild rice was regulated through the years within Ojibwe society by rice chiefs. They were the ones who would say to the people:

The rice is ripe, go ahead, you may harvest it today; no, not today; it is not ripe

yet; let’s wait a couple of days.

Interestingly enough, that system has been codified now as part

of a treaty rights litigation in northern Wisconsin. The lakes that

are jointly regulated by the State of Wisconsin and the Ojibwe

Tribes in northern Wisconsin will not open until there is agreement

between the rice chiefs and the State authorities that it is time to

open those lakes. So there has been influence there in that system.

The other interesting part about wild rice is that the State of

Wisconsin looked to the tribes to define what the State harvest regulations should be, particularly the harvest methods. The State

was discovering that the non–Indian harvesters were using any

method to knock down the rice into the canoes and they were

wrecking the plants, and you were not getting the harvest and you

were not re-seeding. So the State literally adopted into State statutes the tribal harvest method and the traditional regulations that

the tribes had in place for generations.

This helps illustrate, Senator, you asked the question before

about scientific study and scientific knowledge. Our member tribes

take great pride in the traditional ecological knowledge of the people, of the elders, that has been passed down from generation to

generation; that knowledge that has listened to the rhythm of nature; the stories that talk about when it is okay to harvest; how

if you harvest in the proper way, that resource will be there year

after year, generation after generation, to sustain the people and

to sustain the other parts of the ecosystem. So wild plants are important to the tribes in the Great Lakes region.

The other aspect we would like to highlight would be the relationship between human health and traditional food diets. Obesity,

diabetes, I think we have all heard about these, the health problems in Indian country. There are a number of studies that have

been undertaken and that are underway at medical colleges and

elsewhere in the United States and Canada that demonstrate the

relationship between improved health and greater reliance on more

traditional foods such as wild rice, fish and so on.

One of the problems that we run into, and we want to highlight

one of the aspects of our program for you today, is that the fish

have become contaminated, for example, with mercury and other
24

contaminants. Rather than issuing a fish consumption advisory

that says ‘‘you should not eat fish because it is not good for you,’’ we want to try and help members find the fish that have low concentrations of contaminants or no concentration of contaminants,

so that they know what they can eat in what amount. Because as

you know, the consumption patterns of tribal members are different than the non-Indian angler.

When we look at our fish consumption patterns for our tribal

members, they peak in the spring when the fish are running, and

they peak again in the fall as fish are running. The consumption

advisories issued by States, for example, do not take into account

that consumption pattern. They are based upon perhaps somebody

like me and my family, a few fish a week you might catch; you

might eat a meal or two here or there, but it is not as much a part

of my diet as it would be for tribal members.

What we have done, and we have used our BIA funds to leverage

other funds from Health and Human Services and EPA, we have

helped produce these types of color-coded maps. We go sample the

fish; we find out the mercury content in those filets of fish; we classify the lakes, and if Secretary Ridge would excuse us, we came up

with the color-coding first, orange for the hot lakes and so on. We

categorize it lakes for women of child-bearing years and children,

and then for us older guys and women who are not going to have

kids anymore. The concentrations matter differently for those segments of the population.

We give these maps to tribal members to help them make informed decisions about how they can keep fish as part of a healthy

diet, rather than to say the fish are so polluted, do not eat them.

We are working hard to try and keep air pollution from emitting

mercury into the air and then into the ecosystem. We cannot do it

all, but we can help people find healthy fish.

So this is an aspect of our work that we could not do without BIA

dollars. It helps illustrate that we leverage other funding from

other agencies to do that.

Finally, a couple of points, Senator Inouye, and this relates a lot

to your experiences in Wisconsin back in the late 1980’s, the social

context and the partnership context. Much is often made about how

the tribal rights and the tribes may not be compatible with State

sovereignty and States’ rights. I think as you saw in the preparation of the report, Casting Light Upon the Waters, in Wisconsin in

the late 1980’s, the State, the Federal Government and the tribes

got together and said this just is not so; we can do it together.

In building upon that effort, most recently the United States

Fish and Wildlife Service did a strategic plan for its fisheries program and brought together a series of partners under the Sport

Fishing and Boating Partnership Council, and issued a report,

America’s Aquatic Resources Are In Crisis. One aspect of the report

says, we cannot fix it without tribes; we need them; they are important partners.

So just as a reminder, it does work; tribal natural resource management is not incompatible with State sovereignty, as Justice

O’Connor said in the Minnesota v. Mille Lacs case in 1999. But as

a reminder this last spring, we did start seeing nails at boat landings, put out there so that when tribal fishers launched their boats,
25

they would get flat tires. We always have to be mindful that as

tribes try to do the right thing, there are those out there who may

want to stand in their way for reasons not related to the quality

or legitimacy of the tribal programs.

Thank you for the opportunity to be here today, and we are

happy to work with the committee and Congress in any way we can

to help strengthen congressional support for these types of programs.

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

Senator INOUYE. I thank you very much, Mr. Zorn.

May I recognize Mr. Myers.

STATEMENT OF MILLARD J. ‘‘SONNY’’ MYERS, EXECUTIVE

DIRECTOR, 1854 AUTHORITY

Mr. MYERS. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. My name is Sonny Myers. I am the executive director of the

1854 Authority. We are an inter-tribal natural resource management organization which implements the off-reservation or ceded

territory hunting, fishing and gathering rights of the Bois Forte

and Grand Portage Bands of the Lake Superior Chippewa. This is

in the territory ceded in the Treaty of 1854.

It is about 5 million acres of resource-rich land in northeastern

Minnesota. It is also an area, that as my colleague here was saying, we are practically neighbors, rich in fish, wild game and also

a lot of plants that have in the past and continues today to support

a subsistence, although somewhat supplemental, but nonetheless

subsistence lifestyle. It is also an area that contains significant history and significant links to the history and culture of the Chippewa in our neck of the woods. Basically, it is our home.

So I want to thank you for the opportunity to be here this morning, and take just a couple of moments to highlight a couple of the

successes, and also provide insight to some of the challenges. We

also have provided written testimony that goes into a little bit

more detail.

Since we are dealing exclusively with non-reservation lands, cooperation with non-tribal agencies is a must. This is one of our ongoing struggles, but also avenues of success. So cooperation with

the State, Federal and other agencies and protecting, preserving

and enhancing these resources in northeastern Minnesota has been

something we are continually active in.

One thing I would like to highlight, and you will hear over and

over, is really recognition of the tribes’ rightful place among the

stakeholders in managing these resources on non-reservation

lands. It is one of our challenges. Hopefully, it will be something

that may come out of a potential Indian Fish and Wildlife Act.

But successes have been made. A prime example is we are in the

second year of a multi-year moose study where we have collared 60

moose. This is actually a highly valued food source of the Bands,

as well as other folks in Minnesota. We will be tracking these animals in an effort to gain a better understanding of their biology,

specifically their mortality. This project is a cooperation between

the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, the U.S. Geological Survey, and the Fond du Lac Band who is also a signatory to

the 1854 Treaty. The results of this project will definitely benefit
26

all, both Indian and non–Indian alike, so we think it is a prime example of the cooperation that is going on up in our neck of the

woods.

Another shining example has been the BIA Circle of Flight Program, which provides for wetland and waterfall enhancement

projects to tribes in the Great Lakes region. I would like to note

that with these funds we have been able to develop multiple partnerships. The tribes have been able to take about $6.7 million of

these funds over the history of this program and leverage an additional $18 million with other partnering agencies. These partners

are not only governmental agencies, but also private organizations

such as Ducks Unlimited. In one of our projects, we had an investor who was a private individual who invested in a project in memory of her husband’s love for wildlife. So there are multiple, multiple partnerships that have come out of this Circle of Flight Program.

Unfortunately, this funding has found its way to the cutting

block. It was slated for cutting in 2003, but was successfully restored after some pretty aggressive action by the tribes. It is again

slated for elimination in 2004, and I would like to take this opportunity to urge Congress to make this program permanent. It is a

real great beneficial program where the dollars actually do hit the

water, and not a lot of bureaucratic money is spent in that process,

or I should say administrative costs are minimal. If I can provide

any further information about this program, I would be more than

happy to do so.

And finally, our program is funded through the Bureau of Indian

Affairs by a 638 contract, and obviously we could always use more

to do more. But we have more of an immediate concern which is

we have been in existence about 15 years and we are slowly but

surely feeling the affects of funding that has remained relatively

stable, which we are happy with, we are not complaining about

that, and we have always tried to be content with that, but at the

same time expenses have increased. We have had to deal with

these accordingly. Because we are so small, we have nine full-time

employees, and three of them are administrative, two biological

and four conservation officers. A loss of even one position can have

a significant impact.

For example, when my predecessor testified before this committee 10 years ago, we employed five conservation officers to patrol

that five million acres. There is a lot of land out there. Today we

have four, and with the recent significant increases the last couple

of years, which are no news to everybody, but insurance, you name

it, it has gone up. We may soon be faced with further cutbacks.

So I would like to close by stating our appreciation to Congress

for consistently earmarking funds for the 1854 Authority in the Interior Appropriations. These are the lifeblood of the Authority. We

strongly believe great things are being accomplished up in the

Great Lakes region, and with continued funding and support of

Congress we can continue to move in that positive direction to

hopefully establish the tribes as legitimate stakeholders in the

management of resources in the 1854 Treaty area, as well as other

treaty areas.

Thank you for your time.
27

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

Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much, Mr. Myers.

Mr. Cooley.

STATEMENT OF JON COOLEY, INTERIM EXECUTIVE

DIRECTOR, SOUTHWEST TRIBAL FISHERIES COMMISSION

Mr. COOLEY. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. My name is Jon Cooley and I am the executive director of

the Southwest Tribal Fisheries Commission, which represents

tribes located in New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, Colorado, Nevada,

and Southern California.

I appreciate the opportunity to present remarks on tribal fish

and wildlife issues affecting our member tribes, and I respectfully

request that my oral remarks and my written testimony be entered

into the record.

Senator INOUYE. I can assure all witnesses that your prepared

statements are all part of the record.

Mr. COOLEY. Thank you.

Indian reservations in the Southwest contain a unique diversity

of landscapes and accompanying resource management challenges

requiring tribes in the region to exercise stewardship over large expanses of lands, fish, wildlife and other resources. These tribal

lands embrace the full spectrum of ecosystems and habitats the

present opportunities in terms of sustaining tribal communities

and developing compatible resource and recreation-based economies, while also conveying tremendous responsibilities and challenges in providing for the sustainable management and conservation of these diverse resources.

Our member tribes depend in part on fish and wildlife resources

to sustain their cultures, economies and associated resource conservation programs. Our tribes desire to pursue sustainable economic development opportunities that support tribal economies and

conservation programs. Southwest tribal lands have tremendous

potential for economic development, yet our tribes continue to face

significant unmet needs and struggle with building and funding

fish and wildlife management capacity.

It is particularly frustrating to tribes in the area that while the

Department of the Interior has spent hundreds of millions of dollars in recent years on improving Indian trust, very little of that

money has flowed directly into tribal resource management programs or related economic development initiatives. This is a sad

irony, given that tribal lands and resources comprise over 90 percent of the Indian trust corpus.

Despite the Department of the Interior’s lack of emphasis on

these issues, many of our member tribes have developed and rely

upon economies that are natural resource and recreation-based,

with tribal recreational programs evolving into important components of their social fabric and economic viability.

Equally important, tribal recreation economies provide valuable

revenue that generates local employment and enable some tribes to

partially fund conservation programs. By employing their own

management and regulatory structures, our tribes have demonstrated the ability to build sound management programs that
28

have become important contributors to the development of regional

economies and resource conservation efforts.

For instance, our tribes have developed successful world-class

big-game hunting programs and quality recreational fisheries. This

generates public recreation and economic benefits extending well

beyond tribal boundaries. On the conservation front, our tribes also

play instrumental roles in successful native fish recovery and habitat restoration programs in the region.

Despite these advances, the majority of tribal fish and wildlife

programs continue to struggle with developing the biological and

management capacities needed to adequately sustain these diverse

resources. Moreover in recent years, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service policies have shifted away from tribal assistance programs

in favor of the Endangered Species Act and related preservation

priorities. This has gradually deteriorated tribal recreational fishing programs and the national fish hatchery facilities upon which

they depend. For decades, the national fish hatcheries system has

sustained both cold and warm water fisheries on tribal lands and

have productively served tribes in developing their respective recreational fishing enterprises and conservation programs.

This cornerstone hatchery infrastructure includes facilities built

on tribal lands like the Mescalero National Fish Hatchery located

on the Mescalero Apache Reservation in New Mexico, and the

Alchesay-Williams Creek National Fish Hatchery complex located

on the Fort Apache Indian Reservation in Arizona.

Prior to its November 2000 closure, the Mescalero National Fish

Hatchery supported the recreational fishing programs of 17 tribes

in New Mexico, Arizona, and Southern Colorado. The closing has

had a devastating impact on the affected tribal fisheries programs.

Moreover, we understand that the future operation of the AlchesayWilliams Creek complex, which presently provides catchable trout

to 23 tribes in Arizona, New Mexico, and Southern Colorado, is in

similar jeopardy of perhaps being closed.

The lack of emphasis by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service toward these facilities on tribal lands has fostered a negative relationship between the agency and many of our tribes. In fact, the

closure of the Mescalero facility was a key factor in the establishment of our Commission.

Since its inception, the Commission has provided a forum for

tribes to meet and discuss issues with both the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the BIA. This has resulted in improved relations

and mutual understanding with these Federal agencies.

In summary, our tribes organized and developed the Commission

to confront the numerous fisheries challenges and to further develop initiatives that promote sustainable economic development

and enhanced conservation capacity-building on tribal lands. Our

immediate efforts include supporting the Mescalero Apache Tribe

as it moves forward in securing renovation and operating funds

needed to reopen its valuable cold water hatchery facility, and supporting Arizona’s White Mountain Apache Tribe as it pursues renovation funding for the Alchesay-Williams Creek complex. Furthermore, the Commission supports member tribes in developing reliable funding mechanisms for fish and wildlife management pro-
29

grams which are fundamental to tribal sovereignty and self-determination.

To balance economic and conservation objectives, the Commission

recognizes the value of building meaningful, well-coordinated partnerships with Federal, tribal, State, and local interests.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my remarks. I thank you again for

the opportunity to present this testimony, and on behalf of our

member tribes, I invite the committee to the Southwest to enjoy

some of the best recreational fishing in the country.

Thank you.

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

Senator INOUYE. I thank you very much, Mr. Cooley.

Mr. Zorn, about 13 years ago I went to northern Wisconsin because I was told that that area was on the verge of bloody violence

over the exercise of treaty fishing rights. There were people with

shotguns shooting at tribal fishermen. I thought that all of this was

resolved, but I gather that it still goes on.

Mr. ZORN. It still does go on, Senator, perhaps more subtly. I

think the lesson has been learned about the civil disturbances at

the boat landings and the presence of a lot of people there, but

there are still ways that people who do not like the tribes and their

treaty rights will express themselves, like through the nail at the

boat landingss or through some verbal harassment around the

lake. It is more isolated. This is more in East Central Minnesota

where the rights were just recently affirmed. So the goal now is to

nip that in the bud, and hopefully it will not happen like it did in

Wisconsin. It is just a reminder that tribes need Congress to stand

by them in recognition of their rights.

Senator INOUYE. On the Circle of Flight, Mr. Myers, how much

was cut off?

Mr. MYERS. For 2003? I am not sure of the exact numbers. I believe we got $900,000 for 2003, but it was slated to be totally cut

off for 2003, and then it was reinstated by Congress. A lot of tribes

came and talked about the program, the real benefits of the program. It is on the chopping block again, to be eliminated completely.

Senator INOUYE. $900,000? Well, we will do our best to put it in

there. I do not think that will bankrupt the country.

Mr. MYERS. I would just would like to add that it is a really good

program. I can attest from working on the projects. Most of those

dollars actually hit the water or the wetland or the wildlife or the

waterfowl. There is very little administrative moneys used for that.

The other benefit is, especially for those of us, well, I should say

for all tribes, it allows us to be players in the stakeholder game out

there in the natural resource management game. So it is a great

program.

Senator INOUYE. I am very interested in your national hatcheries

program. Will you sit with members of my staff to give us a better

understanding of the hatcheries program? What is the amount of

Federal funds that was involved in that?

Mr. COOLEY. In the case of the Mescalero Hatchery in New Mexico, it was a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service hatchery, and I believe

the operating funds that they relied upon annually to run that facility was right around $300,000 or $350,000 a year. That includes
30

staff and operating funds. In the case of Alchesay-Williams Creek,

keep in mind in the written testimony you will see that it consists

of a complex of two hatcheries, and those combined facilities I believe receive about $800,000 a year to run the entire complex of the

two hatchery facilities.

Senator INOUYE. Did the Inks Dam, Williams Creek, Willow

Beach, did they also receive Federal funds?

Mr. COOLEY. Right. Inks Dam and all of those hatcheries that

you have listed are all within the Fish and Wildlife Service National Fish Hatchery system.

Senator INOUYE. They were all cut out?

Mr. COOLEY. No; Inks Dam is still running, although there has

been discussion about its future as far as producing warm water

species. Willow Beach is located in Arizona. It is also a national

fish hatchery within the National Fish Hatchery system. Its issues

are more in terms of converting what previously had been recreational fish production, namely rainbow trout in particular. They

are moving more and more through time into native fish production, and thereby cutting off some of the sport fish supply.

Senator INOUYE. To revive the Mescalero and the Alchesay-Williams would be about $900,000?

Mr. COOLEY. Combined?

Senator INOUYE. Yes.

Mr. COOLEY. A little bit more, I think. Alchesay-Williams Creek

is still an open facility. Their problems is that it is a deteriorating

facility. I think it is 80 years old, probably, and they do need some

renovation money to keep it. Plus, the drought in Arizona has been

affecting its production as well. In the case of Mescalero, it is a

matter of reopening the facility in its entirety.

Senator INOUYE. Mr. Myers, will you sit with the staff to discuss

the Circle of Flight, and Mr. Cooley, the fisheries?

Mr. COOLEY. I would be happy to.

Senator INOUYE. We will see what we can do.

Mr. MYERS. Thank you.

Senator INOUYE. I thank you all very much.

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving me

the privilege to introduce the last panel here this morning, a group

of fellow Alaskans. First we have Gordon Jackson, the director of

the Business and Sustainable Development Central Council of the

Tlingit and Haida Indians of Alaska, from Juneau. We also have

Patty Brown-Schwalenberg from the Chugach Regional Resource

Commission out of Anchorage, AK; and also Tom Harris, president

and CEO of Alaska Village Initiatives, Inc., from Anchorage.

Gentlemen, ladies, welcome.

Mr. Jackson, if you would like to begin the panel here this morning, we would appreciate your comments. Thank you for coming all

the way.

STATEMENT OF GORDON JACKSON, DIRECTOR, BUSINESS

AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT CENTRAL COUNCIL,

TLINGIT AND HAIDA INDIANS OF ALASKA

Mr. JACKSON. Thank you very much. I am pleased to be here.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the
31

Native people of Southeast Alaska regarding this important legislation you might be considering.

I represent the Southeast Alaska Inter-Tribal Fish and Wildlife

Commission that includes most of the federally recognized tribes of

Southeast Alaska. I serve as the manager of the Division of Business and Sustainable Development for the regional tribal organization, the Central Council of Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of

Alaska. We have over 26,000 members throughout the Pacific

Northwest.

It is a rather interesting situation when you combine business

and sustainable development. I think I will divert from my formal

comments that I have submitted for the record, and just outline

some of my suggestions that I have that can be useful to you.

Sustainable development, we are hopeful that over the next few

months, the new governor will settle one of the issues relating to

Alaska Native people, which is the settlement of the subsistence

rights of Alaska Natives. He made that as a campaign promise,

and we are looking forward to seeing a settlement of that. But

within our Sustainable Development Division, we truly believe that

management at the lowest common denominator to be the best system of management for subsistence rights for Alaska Natives. I say

this in all honesty.

Many smaller communities in Southeast Alaska have been implementing such a system. In the community of Angoon, the only community in the Admiralty Island area in Southeast Alaska, had a

real crisis last several years in one of their sockeye creeks. They

were losing population in that creek, and that community took it

upon themselves to look at it and say, we are not going to harvest

any sockeye from that stream. So the community went hundreds of

miles away to harvest the sockeye that was needed because they

wanted to bring back the numbers so that they can in fact keep

that population healthy, so that their subsistence way of life and

protecting that wonderful species could be retained into the future.

They did so, and they find over the last several years in following

this that the stream is gaining health and has continued to do that.

In another community, the community of Kake basically working

with the State and also the tribal government of Kake, the Organized Village of Kake, took it upon themselves in working with the

State of Alaska to try to look at managing and making sure that

the runs in Falls Creek about 30 miles to the west of Kake remained healthy. They did this together. I truly believe that one of

the things that in the future relating to this could make the subsistence way of life a healthy system is that everyone sits together,

the State, Federal Government, tribes and organizations, manage

a way of life so that it is sustainable. I think there are all kinds

of other models throughout Alaska that are working in relation to

co-management.

I also say that in my position I deal with economic development.

It is really rather interesting to note in my 57 years of life, I see

a tremendous change in the economic system in Southeast Alaska.

There are a lot of people that have addressed the issue of economic

development. My dad was the president for the Organized Village

of Kake for most of my life when I was growing up. The president

handled the cannery within the community of Kake.
32

It is interesting to note in looking at the State of Alaska that

people are always questioning whether there are tribes in the State

of Alaska, and it is always fascinating for me to listen to constant

debates relating to this. But there are tribes in Alaska. They have

been there forever. Over 70 years ago, the Indian Reorganization

Act of 1934 was extended to the State of Alaska in 1936. That has

resulted in most of the Southeast Alaska communities organizing

into Indian Reorganization Act corporations. All of the communities

in Southeast Alaska became one, and many of them became real

proud owners and participants in the economic development of the

fisheries in Southeast Alaska.

These tribes and tribal organizations owned fish canneries

throughout Southeast Alaska, and the communities of Kake,

Klawock, Hydaberg, Angoon, Metlakatla, and Hoonah owned fish

traps. They owned huge fishing fleets. They were real proud fishing

fleets. They owned fish traps, like I said, and the canneries in most

of these communities were very, very healthy economically. But

with the declining fish runs in the 1950’s, many of these communities began to lose money. The people who funded these operations, the BIA through loan programs, started to closely scrutinize

these kinds of economic development-type projects. By the 1970’s,

most of these canneries left many of these smaller communities.

Therefore, many of these smaller communities lost the huge fishing

fleets.

I can give you some examples of the loss of some of these fishing

fleets, and many of these fishing fleets are a direct result of not

only the loss of processors, but also policies of the State of Alaska.

Intentionally or unintentionally, the State of Alaska got rid of the

fish traps and also included the limited entry fishing programs.

With the loss of fish traps and processors, many of these tribal

fishermen left the industry. I can tell you some of these statistics

today, and I feel really, really sad.

In the community of Kake, when the limited entry fishing program first started, there were 27 permits in that community.

Today, there are only eight really functional and very active permits. In the community of Angoon, they had 27 limited entry permits. They now have one active permit. In the community of

Hoonah, who is a very, very proud member of the fishing fleet, had

over 60. They began the operations with the Icy Straits fishing,

which could have begun in late June, but we were stopped because

of the policies of the State Department of Fish and Game, which

basically saw a lot of the early runs over-harvested in the Icy

Straits area. The community of Hoonah has suffered greatly because of the loss of this economic development-type activity.

Few native corporations in Southeast Alaska have taken it upon

themselves to make this a part of their portfolio. One community

in Southeast Alaska, the community of Kake, basically invested a

lot of their activities into the fishing industry. As a result, they

have taken it upon themselves to come up with value-added products development, and have begun to bring back hopefully the industry that has become part of the livelihood of many of these

smaller communities over the last several years. It is coming back

in that community, and hopefully over the next several years we

will be able to provide some assistance and policies relating to this,
33

so that it could become part of the economic development activity

of the whole communities.

But basically, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your looking at these

management-efficient wildlife activities. Like our brothers and sisters in the South 48, we fully support the activities relating to such

an act. We truly believe that we can in fact as tribes and tribal organizations in Southeast Alaska, can in fact become real active

partners in such an act. We have in fact become partners with

many tribes and tribal organizations in the South 48. We got our

model for the Inter-Tribal Fish and Wildlife Commission from the

Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish and Wildlife Commission. We

thank them almost on a daily basis for giving us that model, because it brought us together in a unified voice to look at this one

type of activity in Southeast Alaska. We truly believe that that is

the way to go to address these kinds of policies and things like

that. We endorse it fully.

Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to comment

relating to this. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

Senator MURKOWSKI. I will go ahead, and if you can give your

testimony for us, Ms. Brown-Schwalenberg.

STATEMENT OF PATTY BROWN-SCHWALENBERG, EXECUTIVE

DIRECTOR, CHUGACH REGIONAL RESOURCES COMMISSION

Ms. BROWN-SCHWALENBERG. Thank you.

My name is Patty Brown-Schwalenberg. I am the executive director of the Chugach Regional Resources Commission, more commonly known by its acronym CRRC. I would also like to thank the

committee for the opportunity to testify, as well as Senator Murkowski and her staff for their support of our programs.

I would also like to take a moment to acknowledge the village

chiefs and presidents of the Chugach region for whom I work, as

well as the elders of my tribe, the Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake

Superior Chippewa Indians for sharing their knowledge and wisdom of the resources with me that has allowed me to work in the

area that I do, and that I have for the past 20 years.

The Chugach Regional Resources Commission is a non-profit

Alaska Native group established in 1984 by the seven tribes in the

Chugach region. I should first list the tribes as the Tatitlik IRA

Council, the Chenega IRA Council, the Port Graham Village Council, the Nanwalek IRA Council, Native Village of Eyak, Qutekcak

Native Tribe, and the Valdez Native Tribe. We are located in

South–Central Alaska and Lower Cook Inlet and Prince William

Sound.

CRCC was formed to collectively address the issues of mutual

concern regarding the stewardship of the natural resources, subsistence, the environment, and to develop culturally appropriate

economic projects that support the development and operation of,

and promote the sustainable development of the natural resources.

Over the past 19 years that this inter-tribal commission has been

in existence, we have supported the development and operation of

many natural resource projects and programs, and helped the communities provide meaningful employment opportunities, as well as
34

valuable services and products to the people and the State of Alaska.

I would just like to read into the record the statement of purpose

so you can get a more holistic idea of what we do and why we are

in existence, and that is to promote tribal management of the natural resources traditionally utilized in ways consistent with cultural

traditions and values of the Chugach people; provide formal advocacy to assure that private, State and Federal land and resource

management agencies will work cooperatively with the tribes to

manage natural resources in ways consistent with the cultural traditions and values of the Chugach Tribes; to develop and enhance

natural resource management education and training opportunities

for Chugach tribal governments to improve the management capabilities of the tribes; and promote sustainable and economically

sound natural resource development that will improve the wellbeing of the Chugach Tribes.

I agree with many of my colleagues and friends that have spoken

before me that the physical, social, cultural, economic and spiritual

importance of natural resources is just as important in Alaska. We

do have a little bit different situation in that preserving and protecting the resources is vital to the people in Alaska. A lot of them

do not have grocery stores where they can get store-bought food,

but there is a much heavier reliance on the subsistence harvest for

their life styles.

With that in mind, I just wanted to run down a few of the

projects that CRCC has worked with the tribes to develop. First of

all, the development of tribal natural resource programs needs of

the communities has been an ongoing effort to help the tribes be

more meaningfully involved in the natural resource management

projects and decisions that affect the traditional use areas of the

Chugach region. The Exxon-Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council has a

Gulf Ecosystem Monitoring Program that is just starting up, so the

tribes need to have people in place to be more meaningfully involved in that effort.

The recently instituted Federal Subsistence Fisheries Management Projects occurring in traditional use areas requires, I believe,

tribal participation, as well as potential co-management of the

outer-continental shelf fisheries. We have also been working on developing tribal natural resource management plans for each of the

tribes, in association with the Geographic Information System mapping of traditional use areas, the harvest areas where the species

are located in different times of the year, and that kind of thing.

Another region-wide effort is we have been working, spearheaded

by the Tatitlek IRA Council is a vocational technical level of curriculum for natural resource management based on the traditional

philosophies and management strategies of tribes. The partners in

that effort are University of Alaska, the Anchorage School District,

U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Native American Fish and Wildlife Society, the tribes in the Chugach region, Chugach MUTE, which is the

native nonprofit, and Chugach Alaska, the regional for-profit

ANCSA corporation. We have a three-year grant to institute that

program, so we are hoping after three years we will have that complete and instituted.
35

In 1990, CRRC provided the program village council with funding and technical expertise to start a hatchery program. They are

currently expecting about 300,000 adult pink salmon to return this

year, which will fill the hatchery to capacity. This is a brand new

hatchery that was recently built to replace one that was destroyed

by fire in 1998. The unique situation with this hatchery is that we

worked with the village corporation and the tribal government to

build a hatchery-cannery facility, so that the fish are released in

virtually the same place where the cannery is. The buildings are

connected, so the fish come basically right back to the cannery, so

there is virtually very little transportation costs involved in that

project.

We also have a cooperative project with the Nanwalek IRA Council. They started a program with our assistance to bring back the

sockeye salmon in their lake system, which was a resource shared

by both Port Graham and Nanwalek. They are four miles apart. So

the eggs are taken in Nanwalek, shipped to Port Graham where

they are hatched and reared to a smolt size; returned back to

Nanwalek where they are put in the lake system where they are

reared until they are released in October or November, and then

they return. That project has produced over 220,000 adult sockeye

salmon that have returned to the English Bay River and associated

fisheries since 1990. As a result of that program, it has allowed the

first commercial and subsistence harvest of sockeye to occur in 11

years, and that was several years ago when that happened. So that

was a pretty neat thing.

In the mariculture arena, the Tatitlek Mariculture Project is an

oyster farm that they are operating down there. They have operated since 1992. They get their seed from the Qutekcak Native

Tribe who we have helped develop a tribal shellfish hatchery,

which I will speak to in a moment. The Tatitlek project in addition

to doing the natural resource program in the GRS and things I

spoke about previously, their operation markets 200 dozen to 300

dozen oysters a week. It is on its way to becoming a profitable and

thriving tribal business. This project employs five tribal members.

In a village of 100 people, that is putting food on the tables of five

families, so it is a huge impact.

Like I said, they got their oyster seed from the Qutekcak shellfish hatchery. This hatchery started in a small pilot lab, basically,

several years ago. Two of the tribal members were trying to do

something with littleneck clams, and it turned out they actually

were the first in the country to produce littleneck clams in a hatchery successfully. So we built upon that success story, and they now

are in a state-of-the-art hatchery and they are spawning, hatching

and rearing littleneck clams, Pacific oysters, cockles and geoducks

for sale to shellfish farms in Alaska and elsewhere. They also are

participating in the Shellfish Restoration Project that we started

about eight years ago to restore shellfish beds in the coastal areas

around the villages. That was funded originally through the

Exxon–Valdez Trustee Council as a pilot project, and now it is currently running on its own, where the clam seed are planted on the

beaches in the villages, and then harvested three years later basically for subsistence purposes.
36

That is just an overview of some of the programs that we assist

the tribes in working on. We get our base funding from the BIA.

It has been $350,000 a year ever since we have been in existence,

and like the Circle of Flight Program, we were zeroed out of the

budget in 2003 and zeroed out again in 2004. Our funding was reinstated for 2003 with a minor cut, so we are working with Senator

Murkowski, Senator Stevens, and Congressman Young to try and

get our funding reinstated. Even in the State of Alaska, there is approximately $2 million of

BIA funding that goes toward natural resources, compared to some

of the commissions in the lower 48 whose budgets are probably a

lot larger than that. There is a real need in Alaska for tribal natural resource funding. It is very slim, but we manage to do a lot

with the small amount of money that we have.

The programs that I highlighted are only in the Chugach region,

and there are a lot of tribes in Alaska that have tribal natural resource programs and are doing a lot of neat things. They not only

provide employment opportunities, but sound scientific data to assist the State and Federal management agencies in their management efforts for the benefit of all users.

I appreciate the opportunity to present this information, and I

would be happy to answer any questions at the appropriate time.

Thank you.

[Prepared statement of Ms. Brown-Schwalenberg appears in appendix.]

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you.

And now Tom Harris. Welcome.

STATEMENT OF TOM HARRIS, PRESIDENT AND CEO, ALASKA

VILLAGE INITIATIVES, INC.

Mr. HARRIS. Thank you. We appreciate the opportunity to testify.

On behalf of Alaska Village Initiatives and its statewide memberships, our officers, directors and staff, we thank you for this opportunity.

Alaska Village Initiatives, sometimes known as AVI, is Alaska’s

oldest and largest statewide community development corporation,

and one of the few remaining CDCs nationwide. We were created

in 1968 by President Johnson’s War on Poverty. Our mission is to

improve the economic well-being of America’s rural communities in

Alaska. Our membership and our board are composed of 95 percent

Alaska Native tribes and ANCSA Corporations representing some

of America’s largest aboriginal communities still subsisting on our

ancestral lands.

I am a member of the Taantakwaan Teikweidee or Bear Clan of

the Tongass Tribe of the Ketchikan area. With us is the chair of

our Village Wildlife Conservation Consortium, Katherine Andersen,

and Dr. Bruce Borup, formerly the head of the Business Department for Alaska Pacific University, and recently the new CEO of

Cape Fox Corporation, an ANCSA Village Corporation in Saxman.

Our mission today is to share with you one critical issue affecting

Alaska Native tribes and corporations in the management of Alaskan wildlife and wildlife habitat. From an Alaska Native perspective, Alaska’s wildlife habitat populations are facing the greatest

survival challenge in our history. We as Alaska Natives need your
37

help. At no time in Alaska’s history has the demand been greater

for wildlife and wildlife habitat. This demand comes from predation, from recreational hunting and fishing, viewing, and from subsistence as our primary economy in rural Alaska. The greatest new

pressure is from tourism, which has doubled in the last seven years

and is positioned to double again in the next seven years as more

Americans reach for retirement and their wildlife experience in

Alaska. Alaska’s wildlife habitat is not prepared for this demand,

with decreasing wildlife populations on public and private lands.

In spite of the fact that the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act

is now more than 30 years old, there is as of yet no comprehensive

Statewide plan either with a State or Federal agency on effective

and cooperative management of wildlife habitat of nearly 40 million acres of native corporation land. In spite of the availability of

modern technology to track urban criminals and record them, the

same technology that can be used to track and record wildlife from

altitudes as high as 2,000 feet, no one truly knows to this date

what the wildlife census in Alaska is.

As a result of our reliance on unaudited, unverifiable wildlife

census figures throughout Alaska, we have had endless discrepancies and debates spanning decades over falling harvest levels

and who is to blame. Environmentalists blame hunting, oil, mining

and timber industries. Hunters blame rural residents and Alaska

Native subsistence users. Hunters and subsistence users blame

predators that are the favored species of environmentalists, and

soon we are beginning the whole process over again.

Alaska has millions of acres of dead and dying forests that are

now over-mature and disease-ridden with bark beetle. Without occasional forest fires or prescribed burns to promote new growth,

there is less food for wildlife. Without food, the current ecosystem

may collapse. As a comparison, the Scandinavian nations of Norway, Sweden and Finland have less habitat acreage than Alaska

does, yet they produce 26 times Alaska’s current capacity. This is

done through a higher quality and quantity of feed for the moose;

a higher productive habitat.

At this moment in time, the State is struggling to meet this

need, both as agencies and native corporations. As an example, one

fish and game officer oversees an area the size of California, and

he has no administrative support. Despite having one of the leading wildlife harvest management systems in the country, Alaska’s

production level struggles, producing on a per-acre basis less productive habitat than any other State in the Union. We rank 50th.

In fact, based on 2001 records, it appears that four times more

grazing wildlife was harvested within 100 miles of where we sit

today here in Washington, DC than was harvest in all of Alaska’s

365 million acres.

As demand to increase access to Alaska’s wildlife habitat grows,

so does this paradox of the image the world has of Alaska as the

last frontier and America’s last, best hope for the protection of

wildlife and wildlife habitat. Remote areas such as the Upper

Kuskokwim have seen as much as a 97-percent reduction in moose

population in the last couple of decades. The Alaska Department

of Fish and Game estimates the replacement costs for that 800-

pound moose in winter’s protein to a native community or a rural
38

resident at $3 to $5 a pound, representing a $2,400 to $4,000 impact for a person with per capita income of just $13,000 annually.

This forces those individuals to place a greater reliance on food

stamps and depleted subsistence salmon harvests.

However, there is hope. There is good news. That hope and good

news is that we now know that our lower 49 sister States have had

more successful wildlife production due to an economic resource

tool that not only helped them restore their wildlife habitat, but

also enabled them to access tourism in a sustainable and ecologically stable manner. Until very recently, this funding was not

available to Alaska. That economic resource tool is the USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service which provides funding nationwide to private landowners for the purpose of conserving and restoring wildlife habitat on privately owned lands. USDA also conducts the Natural Resource Inventory, which provides data that

USDA utilizes to plan its funding to those landowners in 2001.

This funding program provided $350 million for this purpose.

However, there are challenges. The 1997 Natural Resource Inventory specifically omits or excludes all Federal lands and Alaska.

Alaska is the only State to be so excluded, and only recently began

receiving a small amount of money. USDA provided $523,000 to

Alaska landowners in 2001, or 0.15 percent of the national budget.

In comparison, 1 lower 49 State received over $19 million, or more

than 5 percent of the national budget. Only Rhode Island received

less funding than Alaska did. However, on a per-acre basis, Alaska

received only 2 percent of what Rhode Island received. We know,

having discussed this with them, that the local USDA directors are

aware of this disparity and are doing what little they can to address this obvious inequity.

The Natural Resource Inventory has been conducted every five

years since 1982, but in the past 20 years no correction of Alaska’s

omission has been proposed or planned. We hope that the visit here

with you today will help spur that correction. Alaska Village Initiatives respectfully requests rapid action by this committee and

USDA on behalf of Alaska’s wildlife habitat to help Alaskans and

Alaskan communities recover as a State to better prepare for the

increasing demand for our fellow Americans who are coming to participate on an ever-increasing level to see Alaska’s wildlife heritage.

Alaska Village Initiatives is an economic tool created by this

Congress to serve our citizens and our country in this small way.

It has been our duty and our joy to serve in this capacity for more

than 35 years. It is our hope that in providing this testimony, we

have been of service here today. Our members and our board as aboriginal tribes and native corporations have been taught to care for

the land as for each other. However, the growing demand for access

to this resource is beyond our humble abilities to care for without

further incurring damage to the habitat.

Economic hardship has forced many native allotment owners to

sell out, and we are seeing signs today that thousands of acres of

ANCSA land are moving towards sale to the highest bidder. Our

tribes and our corporations cordially welcome visitors. However, demand is now so great that we now are asking for help. As Americans, we do not want to be ashamed by having to turn away our
39

own citizens, for we as Alaska Natives and American Natives understand what it is to be turned away.

Alaska’s habitat is indeed America’s national treasure, whether

it is in a national park or on private lands. This is America’s challenge on how best to provide protection of and access to Alaska’s

premier wildlife habitat in a way that is safe and sane. This Congress saw fit to protect the resources on private lands in the lower

49, as their habitats were impacted by increased visitation. We respectfully request that Alaska now be included as a full participant

in the protection of wildlife habitat on private lands as provided to

all other States.

We thank you for your kind attention to this matter. If we at

AVI can be of any assistance, please call on us. On behalf of our

tribes and our members, Gunaalcheesh, Quyana, Anabasi, Howa,

and thank you.

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

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you all. I appreciate your testimony

this afternoon.

Mr. Chairman, I am more than a few minutes late for my next

meeting, so I am going to have to excuse myself. But Mr. Harris,

I would hope that my office would be able to work with you and

the Alaska Village Initiatives to ensure that as we attempt to survey what it is that we have, that Alaska gets the appropriate level

of funding. It is quite apparent from looking at the preparation

that you have done for this hearing that there have been some inequities over the years. I am not quite certain why or how. Let’s

get beyond that and just correct it.

Mr. HARRIS. Yes, ma’am.

Senator MURKOWSKI. I don’t know, perhaps I misunderstood or

was not quite clear, but Ms. Brown-Schwalenberg, I thought you

said that at least at Chugach there was some mapping of the wildlife resources that are around. So is it kind of on a sporadic unofficial basis, and that has been our problem? We do not have a verifiable source that we can look to?

Mr. HARRIS. That is absolutely the case. We are tracking wildlife

today the same way we did at statehood. Someone gets in a plane,

flies it 500 feet above the ground, looks out a window and tries to

count the animals that they fly over the forest. There is a formula

that they use to extrapolate, but that formula does not take into

consideration the increased demand and the impacts of habitat

degradation. So we are proposing that the new technology of heatsensor cameras can do a much better job at 2,000 feet, and provide

a permanent record that is verifiable.

Senator MURKOWSKI. I thought your comments about essentially

the ability to hunt around the DC area, you have got greater ability to bag an animal up here than you would in Alaska. Sometimes

I think our animals manage us rather than the reverse. I am not

suggesting that we need to get out and farm everything, but we

should probably do a better job with what we have. As you point

out, first we need to know what it is that we have.

Mr. HARRIS. Yes, ma’am.

Senator MURKOWSKI. So I appreciate the comments of all members of the panel that I have been able to sit in on.

Mr. Chairman, thank you.
40

Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much.

Mr. Jackson, you presented a rather dismal picture of some of

the conditions, canneries closing, fishing fleets disappearing and

such. And you pointed out that the stock has diminished. How is

it now? Have the fish come back?

Mr. JACKSON. Mr. Chairman, we have so much salmon we do not

know what to do with them. The one creek that I was talking about

was a subsistence creek, Kanalku on Admiralty Island. The stocks

of sockeye salmon had diminished, but overall the runs of pink,

chum, silver, we are expecting record runs this year.

Senator INOUYE. And nobody wants to get back there?

Mr. JACKSON. Pardon me?

Senator INOUYE. You said that canneries closed.

Mr. JACKSON. The canneries have been moving back from rural,

smaller communities for the last 30 years. The canneries located in

the smaller communities, largely native communities, all of them

have closed since 1970. The bigger processors basically moved to

larger communities like Petersburg and other locations where the

labor and transportation costs are lower. So many of these fishermen have to run many, many miles to sell their products. So largely native fishermen have gotten out of the business, not only because of the length of time that you have to run to sell your catch,

but also the prices and a whole number of other factors that are

just tremendous.

The fact is also that we have a huge competition from farmed

salmon. Farmed salmon has brought down the price of salmon

largely down to the bottom. I remember in 1989 when I was a commercial person, and when I was a teacher, we were selling to fish

buyers at 80 cents per pound for humpies, pink salmon. Last year,

they were being bought for five cents a pound, which is really a

huge drop in a little over 10 years. So the price and the market

conditions have changed substantially.

Senator INOUYE. What is the solution?

Mr. JACKSON. The solution basically is to continue the strategy

and continue within the system, that the market in the wild salmon, which I believe is the best in the whole world. Wild salmon

tastes great. I truly believe that in the future, the marketing systems will show that wild salmon tastes the best and is the most

healthy. I think that any discussion of any kind of bill relating to

this that you are considering should include marketing-type activity, because one of the biggest problems relating to marketing the

wild salmon is the cost. I am pretty sure that everybody from the

Pacific Northwest will tell you exactly what I am telling you.

Senator INOUYE. Ms. Brown-Schwalenberg, your problem, what

should we do? Restore the hatcheries?

Ms. BROWN-SCHWALENBERG. I am sorry?

Senator INOUYE. You spoke of your hatcheries closing up because

of a lack of funds.

Ms. BROWN-SCHWALENBERG. Yes.

Senator INOUYE. Would restoration help?

Ms. BROWN-SCHWALENBERG. Of the fishery?

Senator INOUYE. The hatcheries.

Ms. BROWN-SCHWALENBERG. Yes; right now, the Port Graham

hatchery operates. We get $350,000 from the BIA. They get a ma-
41

jority of that. They get a big share of that funding, and then the

rest they try to get through other grants just to keep it operating.

So that has always been a problem. The work that they have done

has been of great benefit to the community, but the problem is

keeping it going.

Senator INOUYE. Will you get a hold of the staff people and discuss this matter with them?

Ms. BROWN-SCHWALENBERG. Certainly.

Senator INOUYE. Because we are just on the beginning of the

cycle on appropriations, and that would be helpful.

Mr. Harris, needless to say, your stats were rather depressing.

What can we do?

Mr. HARRIS. As mentioned, while this is an item that directly impacts Native Americans, specifically rural Alaskans in some of the

poorest areas in the Nation, there is opportunity. We have a wonderful economy of tourism. However, the communities are not prepared for that. I am also the director of the Cape Fox Corporation.

There, we welcome industrial tourists. We step off the cruise ships.

We welcome 60,000 tourists through our village of 500 people.

However, we are unique. That cannot happen in a village in remote

Alaska. That tourism market, it is much different. It is a market

that caters to an individual looking for a more remote experience.

That market is strong today and growing stronger year by year.

However, the villages are not prepared for that.

As you know, subsistence is a huge issue in these communities.

Through the generous guidance and assistance from Senator Ted

Stevens, Alaska Village Initiatives has been promoting private land

wildlife management on models in the lower 48. We have been very

encouraged by those models because they do two things. They

produce abundant wildlife, as we have seen here, that occurs here

now within 50 miles and 100 miles of where we sit. That abundant

wildlife takes care of the subsistence needs. It also produces a surplus that attracts the high-end tourist.

So the community has a choice. It can take care of its needs, and

we encourage it to do so, first having the tribe work with the corporation to develop a subsistence program, and then pursue the

economy with the surplus, as we have seen with the wonderful success of the Apache White Mountain Program. They are a stellar

program, and we have been having visits with them and modeling

our efforts after similar programs throughout the West.

So one of the things that we are missing is the 20 years that,

actually almost 25 years now, that NRCS has been funding these

programs in the lower 49 States. It is just now beginning at a very

small trickle. It needs to be accelerated for Alaska, and these landowners need to have the resources necessary to rebuild that stock.

When we look at Alaska, it is not over-predation; it is not overhunting; and it is not even harsh winters. There is not enough

food. Without food, the cycle of life cannot be complete. This wildlife needs that food, and over-mature forests cannot produce that.

We need a healthy forest.

Senator INOUYE. How is your caribou stock?

Mr. HARRIS. The caribou stock is doing well. I have to say that

it is 32,300 that were harvested in 2001. It is one of the very few

programs that have a comprehensive management program. How-
42

ever, when you take into consideration the deer and the moose, and

the moose being so critical to many areas, we harvest 7,000 moose.

On less habitat, less acreage, 185,000 moose are being harvested

in the Scandinavian countries.

Senator INOUYE. I ask that question because when the pipeline

was built, and I supported the pipeline, many said that the caribou

flock would be wiped out. It was not wiped out.

Mr. HARRIS. No; not by any means, because it is so well managed, it is a success story, but the caribou only live in certain

areas, and that sustenance is not available to many areas of the

State.

Senator INOUYE. Now they are telling us that it would be wiped

out if ANWR is developed.

Mr. HARRIS. On a personal basis, Mr. Chairman, I have trouble

believing that, especially considering the numbers that we see

growing within 100 miles of where we sit. The issue is managing

the wildlife life cycle in a way that provides them food, water and

shelter. It is obvious from the success of this program in the lower

48 that that has been met for those species. We do not have that

right now in Alaska. As you know, the South Central Alaska is besieged in spruce bark beetle-killed timber. That represents a tremendous fire hazard, but they are called dead standing for a reason. They stay dead-standing for a long time, and we have two billion board feet of dead-standing white spruce in the middle of the

Yukon, where our elders tell us that there is no life. Sunlight cannot get through there. Until they burn down, they is certainly not

going to be timber harvested. They need to burn down to promote

new growth.

Senator INOUYE. I thank you all very much for your patience. It

has been an eye-opener for me. It just reminded me that I better

go back to Indian country again.

Mr. HARRIS. Welcome.

Senator INOUYE. It has been a long time since I have been to the

Arctic Circle. It has been a long time since I have been back to

northern Wisconsin. Do I have to take a bullet-proof vest to go to

northern Wisconsin? [Laughter.]

Thank you very much.

[Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m. the committee was adjourned, to reconvene at the call of the Chair.]
(43)

APPENDIX

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL, U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON

Mr. Chairman and Mr. Vice Chairman, I would like to thank you for today’s hearing on an issue that is vitally important to tribes in the Pacific Northwest and to

the country as a whole.

In Washington State, Indian tribes are making significant contributions to improve the management of fish and wildlife resources and to help protect and recover

Pacific salmon stocks.

Through the inter-tribal organizations represented here today, Washington State

tribes are working as full partners with the State of Washington, Federal agencies

and other stakeholders to promote salmon recovery and sound natural resource

management.

I would like to welcome Billy Frank of the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, Olney Patt, executive director, Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission

and Warren Seyler, chairman, Upper Columbia United Tribes.

I would also like to congratulate Mr. Patt for his recent appointment to head the

Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission. I look forward to working with you

in your new capacity.

Mr. Chairman, through the leadership of these organizations, Washington state

tribes have worked very hard to promote salmon recovery across the State.

The tribes and the region face very difficult challenges to manage tribal resources

on tribal lands and to work with partners outside of reservation boundaries—to help

manage salmon, shellfish, marine fisheries and other fish and wildlife species over

the long-term.

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with you and Senator Inouye on these

matters as the Committee considers legislative proposals to provide for greater Federal assistance to tribes to help fulfill our obligations to Indian tribes in the Northwest and across the country.
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
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
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196

Æ