<DOC>
[108 Senate Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:87608.wais]
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
87-608 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpr.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512ÿ091800
Fax: (202) 512ÿ092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402ÿ090001
COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado, Chairman
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Vice Chairman
JOHN McCAIN, Arizona, KENT CONRAD, North Dakota
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico HARRY REID, Nevada
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
GORDON SMITH, Oregon MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
Paul Moorehead, Majority Staff Director/Chief Counsel
Patricia M. Zell, Minority Staff Director/Chief Counsel
(ii)
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
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.
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 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
boogey-men. 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 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.
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 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 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 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 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 humbled 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 tributaries, 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.
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 up-river 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 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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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 Pittman-Robertson, 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 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 support 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.
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 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 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 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, 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 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.
[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 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 Alchesay-Williams 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 programs 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 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 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.
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, 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
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 well-being
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.
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.
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 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 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 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 heat-sensor 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.
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
majority 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
over-hunting; 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.
However, 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.]
=======================================================================
A P P E N D I X
----------
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.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.107
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.108
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.109
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.110
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.111
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.112
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.113
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.114
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.115
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.116
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.117
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.118
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.119
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.120
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.121
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.122
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.123
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.124
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.125
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.126
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.127
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.128
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.129
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.130
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.131
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.132
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.133
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.134
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.135
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.136
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.137
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.138
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.139
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.140
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.141
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.142
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.143
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.144
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.145
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.146
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.147
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.148
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.149
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.150
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.151
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.152
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7608.153