November 21, 1997
Washington State Fish and Wildlife Commission
600 Capitol Way N.
Olympia, WA 98501
RE: Joint tribal/state wild salmonid policy
Dear Commission Members:
On behalf of the Yakama Nation, I am pleased to provide the following comments to the record of the Commission’s hearings on the captioned subject. You may appreciate the concern with which the Yakama Nation has viewed the state’s development of a policy regarding management of shared fishery resources. The draft policy document dated November 7, 1997 is the initial product of efforts by affected state and tribal co-managers to integrate the state’s management priorities and philosophies with those of the tribes. As we have seen, it is no simple task, yet it must be done.
Our reading of this draft leaves us of two minds. On the one hand, we are encouraged that the state recognizes the existence of other sovereigns within the state of Washington who also exercise management authority over the state’s fishery resources. On the other, we are disappointed that the state’s approach to restoration planning remains inconsistent with that of Washington’s treaty tribes.
In general, the goals of the salmon restoration do not differ much between the state’s co-managers. All of us envision a future that includes abundant runs of wild salmon returning to healthy natural spawning areas. None of us can foresee how long this will take. Where we differ is in the strategies that we would adopt to effect this vision of the future, and in the interim measures that must be taken between now and then.
It must be emphasized that the differences between state and tribal strategies stem from legitimate scientific debate regarding the nature of salmon population biology. The Commission should know that neither side in this scientific debate has the benefit of perfect knowledge. The contentious issues in the draft wild salmonid policy concern the relative importance of local adaptation, maintenance of among-population genetic variance, and the suitability of hatchery fish for restoration. These issues are best characterized in the context of the age-old “nature vs nurture” question. Proponents of the “nature” view advocate that the genetic makeup of each animal is critically important and determines the eventual fate of the animal, while the proponents of “nurture” propose that the environmental influences during the life of an organism play an important role in its eventual fate. The debate is as old as science itself, and it would be a mistake for either side to claim victory.
In this draft policy, the state has concluded that “nature’ is pre-eminent over “nurture” by choosing to emphasize genetic population structure as the key to successful salmon restoration. By focusing on this one aspect of salmon biology, it is possible that the proximate goals of genetic conservation may be achieved while the ultimate goal of salmon restoration remains elusive. More to the point, however, is our concern that the state’s conclusion and derivative policies may preclude other, equally valid approaches to salmon restoration. The co-managers instead should be striving for polices that allow each party to implement actions based on its view of the “nature” vs nurture” debate. Where the parties disagree, restoration actions should be designed in such a way that the assumptions underlying each position can be tested in a scientific manner.
In our reading of the draft joint policy, the state and western Washington treaty tribes appear to have found a measure of flexibility that would allow the WDFW to configure salmonid restoration plans on a case-by-case basis in consultation with affected tribes. We support this affirmation of a co-management approach that accommodates the specific needs, priorities, and restoration potentials of local areas. It is not clear, however, whether Washington intends that this joint policy will be extended to eastern Washington treaty tribes. Also, it has been reported that this joint policy would be applied in parts of the state in which management jurisdiction is shared with treaty tribes, but that the state’s own version of the Wild Salmonid Policy could be applied in parts of the state in which jurisdiction is not shared. We wonder specifically which parts of the state of Washington are not affected by co-management, since tribes at one time occupied or utilized all the Pacific Northwest landscape. Perhaps this can be clarified.
With respect to the area of influence of this draft policy, we point out that the non-Washington parties to United States v Oregon also would be affected by its implementation. These co-managers need to be consulted and apprised of the potential impacts to shared fishery resources that could result from adoption of the management guidelines in the policy. Further, insomuch as the U.S. v Oregon parties will be renegotiating the terms of the Columbia River Fish Management Plan over the coming year, we fully expect that adoption of this draft policy by Washington does not place the state in an inflexible negotiating position.
Despite the considerable progress toward recognition of tribal co-management authority displayed in this draft, we are nevertheless disappointed to see the state’s continued adherence to what we consider to be the failed concept of creating separate hatchery and wild strains of salmonids. The alarming status of wild steelhead populations in the Columbia Basin attests to the failure of this management strategy after three generations of its application. We see no empirical reason for expanding it to the other salmonids. Instead tribal policy promotes the use hatcheries in a manner that dissolves the distinction between wild and hatchery fish. In our view, it is premature to condemn hatchery technology before first determining whether hatchery policies may be modified to provide the survival benefits of hatchery protection to wild fish while preserving their wild characteristics. This concept of wild stock supplementation is being tested jointly by the Yakama Nation and WDFW at the newly-activated Yakima Spring Chinook Facility in Cle Elum.
In conclusion, we are dismayed that the state apparently cannot be budged from a prescription for salmon restoration that is unlikely, in our view, to restore wild salmon runs in a time period meaningful to human beings, but we are encouraged that the state recognizes it cannot unilaterally decide this course of action for all of the fishery managers in the state. The Yakama Nation intends to continue working toward implementation of salmonid restoration plans based on tribal policies and priorities. We invite the state of Washington to work with us in this effort, or in the alternative, to work in the spirit of co-management to allow the expression of each party’s management authority. We are not prepared, however, to subordinate the tribe’s efforts to sustain and restore salmon populations in order to accommodate policies we believe to be based on a narrow or flawed view of salmon biology.
We look Forward to continuing the development of this joint policy so that all co-managers can be assured of a fair and equitable participation in salmon restoration efforts.
Sincerely,
Jerry Meninick, Chairman
Legislative Committee
Yakama Nation
