Last week Sarah posted a message on OlyBlog shedding light on the travails that the Native American tribe faces as it fishes in the Nisqually River. I would highly recommend exploring some of the links that Sarah posted, but I’ll return to that later. While I am hesitant to put too much thought into what was perhaps simply a moronic and isolated occurrence, I do think there are some interesting issues that deserve a bit of attention.

…

Suffice it to say the Nisqually Tribe has an interest in the river which carries its food. With that interest comes responsibility, which I would say becomes the crux of the most salient point of graffiti appearing on the overpass.

It’s called “salmon fatigue” and from what I can tell, it’s a brain infection that makes you tired of trying to save the salmon.

If we cried about fatigue every time we came up against a difficult problem in this country, where would we be? I don’t understand how you can get tired of trying to save the salmon.

What those infected with salmon fatigue are really saying is “stop coming to me and talking about salmon.”

I have news for them. We’re just getting started.

Puget Sound chinook were listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act almost ten years ago. We’ve worked hard during that time with our state co-managers to develop a recovery plan for these fish that fixes their habitat and restricts harvest. Despite all of our work Puget Sound steelhead, which depend on much of the same habitat as chinook, were listed under the ESA last year.

We’re not giving up, though, and we’re sure as hell not getting tired.

I’m hearing complaints about salmon fatigue at the same time we’re trying to muster the strength to clean up Puget Sound. I’ll tell you, getting tired of salmon sure isn’t going to get us any closer to rescuing Puget Sound.

We can’t risk salmon fatigue becoming Puget Sound fatigue.

It’s kind of funny, but the people who are around salmon the most, like fishermen, don’t get salmon fatigue. You would think that people who spend their lives around salmon would be more likely to get tired of them, but they don’t.

The salmon sure don’t get tired. They come back to the rivers every year in the hope that we have turned ourselves around and have worked to restore and protect their homes.

Now is the time we should be making great strides in our efforts to recover Puget Sound chinook and other listed species, but instead we are seeing less and less funding for this work.

In fact, when adjusted for inflation, the treaty Indian tribes in western Washington now receive less funding for salmon management than we did 30 years ago.

This lack of funding might slow us down, but it won’t stop us. We won’t let it.

If elected officials and bureaucrats can’t get cured of their “Salmon Fatigue” and truly commit to salmon recovery – even before the job is 10 percent done – how can we expect to clean up Puget Sound?

Billy Frank Jr. is the chairman of the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission.

(END)

For more information, contact: Tony Meyer or Emmett O’Connell, NWIFC, (360) 438-1180.

It’s a concept that is as valid today as it has ever been. If people can begin to understand their connection to the earth, they will treat it with much greater sensitivity than they have over the past century.

These are the thoughts that come to me when I think about the so-called property rights initiative, I-933, which will be on your general election ballot in November.

To say I believe you should vote no on I-933 would be an understatement. You should vote “hell, no!”

I-933 is far more dangerous and damaging than you might think.

Other states, particularly Oregon, are seeing the horrible impacts of similar initiatives in the form of skyrocketing expenses and litigation. If this ill-advised initiative were to pass in Washington, heaven forbid, you will see more of the same. This is an initiative that would dismantle land-use rules designed to protect clean air and clean water. It will harm the land and it will steal quality of life from our children.

This initiative requires state and local governments to exempt property owners from any land use, zoning or environmental law adopted or changed since 1995, unless they pay the property owner for any impacts on property uses or values. It also applies the “exempt or pay” approach to any limits on logging, to shoreline protections, water-use laws, agricultural practices and many rules that help keep toxic chemicals out of rivers, streams, and Puget Sound. The Initiative requires extremely extensive, unnecessary and unpaid-for studies before your city, county or state government representatives can enact any laws to protect the land we all share.

Frankly, I-933 would eliminate the tools needed to provide badly needed protection of the environment and natural resources that sustain us all.

The Department of Ecology says I-933 would require it to either reimburse landowners, or not enforce the federal Clean Water Act. The Puget Sound Action Team says the initiative will greatly impair the shellfish and tourism industries, and may result in additional “dead zones” in Puget Sound like the ones in Hood Canal and off the coast. The initiative would seriously affect the Department of Fish and Wildlife’s ability to protect fish life and would gut Washington’s forest practices laws. I-933 would cost taxpayers billions of dollars. In fact, the Office of Financial Management has estimated it would cost state agencies more than $2 billion over the next six years alone. It would cost cities another $3 to 5 billion and counties another $1.5 billion. It’s a recipe for governmental bankruptcy and fiscal disaster. Initiative proponents don’t tell us where all the funding is supposed to come from, but taxpayers have a pretty good idea. They know I-933 would cause all of us financial hardships, even as it destroys public services.

Proponents of I-933 claim it would save farmland. But as farmers read between the lines, they realize it would actually cause far more agricultural land to be converted to subdivisions. They’re abandoning the ship, and joining us in calling I-933 what it is—a very bad initiative.

Billy Frank Jr. is the chairman of the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission.

(END)

For more information, contact: Steve Robinson or Tony Meyer, NWIFC (360) 438-1180

She recently followed the examples of her predecessors in officially endorsing the Centennial Accord, a 1989 state/tribal commitment to work together, as governments, to find mutual solutions to the many challenges we share. The tribes appreciate her words of support because the Accord provides good guidance toward worthwhile achievement.

Still, she would be the first to admit words alone can ring hollow, however inspiring they may be. It will be action, and promises kept, that will measure the success of her administration.

When tribal chairs joined former Governor Booth Gardner in signing the Accord in the state’s centennial year, concurrent achievements put the Northwest in the international limelight and inspired cooperation between Indian and non-Indian nations and states near and far. It was follow up action and promises realized-not the act of signing-that brought luster to the Gardner legacy.

Booth’s successors have not cast as large a shadow. When he worked with us to develop the Accord, he understood that we are the “”fishing tribes.”" He knew that is a reputation we have earned, in the eyes of tribes all across the country, through thousands of years of stewardship. He knew working with us means putting the salmon where it belongs -at the forefront of all decisions, involving everything from the economy to education. Strong returns of salmon mean clean waters and protecting uplands. It means pure air and it means healthy people. It means we are in touch with our common mother-the Earth.

The Accord speaks of respect, understanding and cooperative communication. Good words. But they’re meaningless unless they lead to more salmon and greater investments in the protection and restoration of salmon habitat. For far too long, most businesses in this state have failed to be responsive to the needs of this Northwest icon and the state has failed to inspire and adequately fund the efforts needed to respond to the needs of salmon.

We have deeply appreciated it when non-tribal people and governments in watersheds across the state have worked with us in our care-taking role as salmon managers. And we deeply appreciate the Governor’s embrace of the Centennial Accord. But the fact is that we are tired of sacrificing our fisheries while habitat devastation marches on unscathed and the exploitation of the land continues unabated. The impacts of excess do accumulate, and they do kill fish.

Will the promises of our new governor help bring the change that must come? It will take courage, foresight and tempering of lifestyle. But the opportunity to change does exist, and we do believe she is capable of providing sorely needed leadership. We offer our hand to her, in friendship and the spirit of cooperation.

Billy Frank Jr. is the chairman of the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission.

(END)

For more information, contact: Steve Robinson or Tony Meyer, (360) 438-1180.

The bilateral Pacific Salmon Commission (PSC), based in Vancouver, B.C., is the body that oversees implementation of the Pacific Salmon Treaty. By treaty agreement, the U.S. and Canada equally share the cost of the Commission. So far this year, the United States has not made its annual payment, and the Commission has been operating solely on the Canadian government’s share, which will soon run out. The United States’ contribution of approximately $1.1 million was due in April 2003. If it is not paid by mid-September, the Commission will have to start shutting down its office.

The Bush Administration’s budget proposal for FY2003 included full funding for the Commission. However, the budget passed by Congress in February, unexpectedly did not include the funds for the U.S. share of the Commission. The U.S. Department of State has attempted to cover the shortfall on a temporary basis by redirecting funds from other accounts, but that approach, which requires concurrence from Congress, so far has not succeeded. U.S. representatives to the PSC will travel to Washington, D.C. when Congress reconvenes in September to urge federal appropriators to provide funds for operations of the Commission.

The government of Canada already has expressed serious concern over the failure of the United States to provide its share of the funding and the resulting disruption of the treaty’s implementation.

“The Commission has greatly scaled back its routine activities to provide the U.S. State Department additional time to address the funding issue, but time is running out” said Roland Rousseau, a U.S. Commissioner and chair of the Finance and Administration Committee. “Without the U.S. payment, the Pacific Salmon Commission soon will be forced to lay off staff, comprised mostly of scientific experts and administrative support personnel, and curtail all other support activities critical to treaty implementation.”

The 1985 Pacific Salmon Treaty governs the interception of intermingling salmon stocks from the two countries. The treaty is designed to prevent overfishing and to ensure that each country receives the benefits of its salmon production. It also pledges both countries to work together to rebuild weak wild salmon stocks.

The Commission office provides support services for the annual meetings between the two nations. Representatives of the countries meet to share information on the status of the runs and agree on annual fishing levels affecting shared salmon stocks, consistent with fishing regimes established in the treaty. The Commission also maintains a scientific and technical staff dedicated specifically to the management of the sockeye and pink salmon runs originating in the Fraser River, the harvest of which has long been shared by the two countries.

“By not funding the Pacific Salmon Commission, the United States is failing to meet an international treaty obligation, and is jeopardizing Northwest salmon recovery efforts in Puget Sound and the Columbia River. This could be the first step in unraveling all the progress achieved under the treaty over the past two decades” said W. Ron Allen, a U.S Commissioner and chairman of the Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe.

“This funding crisis is causing alarm and great concern among the fishery managers and fishers on both sides of the border,” Allen said. Within Puget Sound, the most immediate impact is on the management of the shared Fraser River sockeye fishery that occurs each summer in the Straits and northern Puget Sound. Already, the Commission’s efforts to stretch existing funds have led to reduced sampling of fisheries, thereby reducing the ability of managers to monitor the run size and adjust fishing schedules. “This increases the risk of mistakes that can hurt the weaker components of the run, while increasing the potential that the U.S. fishery will not be able to harvest its full share of the stronger components as negotiated under the provisions of the treaty,” Allen said.

Over the longer term, the loss of bilateral cooperation made possible by this treaty would have a severe impact on salmon fisheries from Alaska to Oregon, and may undermine support for the massive efforts throughout the Northwest to rebuild salmon stocks.

“Loss of the treaty would mean our ability to manage chinook fisheries coastwide would be dramatically impaired, putting at risk the sacrifices made by local communities in the Puget Sound and Columbia River basin to restore stocks listed under the Endangered Species Act,” said Larry Cassidy, U.S. Commissioner from the State of Washington.

END

For more information, contact: W. Ron Allen, U.S. Commissioner (Chair), (360) 683-1109; Roland Rousseau, U.S. Commissioner, (503) 690-2731; Larry Cassidy, U.S. Commissioner, (360) 693-6951; Jim Heffernan, U.S. Finance and Administration Committee, (503) 731-1287; Craig Bowhay or Tony Meyer, NWIFC, (360) 438-1180.

Funding Facts, FY2003 and FY2004

Department of State, International Fisheries Commissions

FY 2003 Appropriation – Department of State, International Fisheries Commissions

FY 2003 President’s Budget Request: $19,780,000

FY 2003 Omnibus Appropriation Act Level: $16,989,000

Difference: $2,791,000

The difference consists of the total elimination of funds for the Pacific Salmon Commission ($2,225,000) and several other smaller commissions ($566,000).

FY2003 Reprogram Request by Department of State

The Department of State submitted a request to Congress to reprogram $1,728,000 within its International Fisheries Commissions account to cover minimal and immediate needs of the unfunded commissions. Of this amount, $1,344,000 was intended for the Pacific Salmon Commission for sharply reduced activities and associated U.S. Section expenditures that had occurred under continuing resolution prior to the passage of the Omnibus appropriation in February, 2003. The remainder ($384,000) was for other unfunded commissions.

The reprogramming request has been approved by the House Appropriations Sub-Committee, but in the Senate, the Appropriations Sub-Committee only approved $400,000 of the reprogramming request, which falls far short of the basic needs of the unfunded Commissions. The full amount requested ($1,728,000) is needed for the FY03 operations of the unfunded Commissions and also to set the basis for FY04 expenditures during any period covered under continuing resolution.

Due to the delay in approval of the reprogramming (and possible Congressional refusal), the Pacific Salmon Commission will soon have no choice but to discontinue operations, placing the Pacific Salmon Treaty and all its benefits in serious jeopardy. Canada is aware of this situation and has transmitted a diplomatic note to the United States to further elevate this issue.

FY 2004 Funding for International Fisheries Commissions

The House has developed its FY 2004 Budget for the International Fisheries Commissions. The level that has been set is again only $16,989,000 compared to the Presidents request of $20,043,000. Accompanying language directs full funding for two Commissions and a payback of reprogrammed funds which would leave only $1,313,000 for all other International Fisheries Commissions, including the Pacific Salmon Commission. The following funding is needed for International Fisheries Commissions to compensate for the FY 2003 shortfall and provide full funding of the President’s request) for the International fisheries Commissions in FY 2004:

President’s Request (full funding for all commissions): $20,043,000

Payback for Reprogramming of FY03 Funds: $1,728,000

Remainder of FY03 U.S. Obligation for Pacific Salmon Commission: $600,000

Total: $22,371,000

“There’s several Olympia oysters living on this one, five or six, and they’re all pretty small,” said Sparkman, shellfish biologist for the Skokomish Tribe. “But they are alive and they are slowly growing, and that’s really what counts.”

Outfitted in hip-waders, Sparkman and Teresa Barron, management biologist for the tribe, spend the afternoon checking two of the five sites near the Skokomish River where Olympia oysters have been planted. The pair counts and measures the juvenile oysters, checking the progress of a project aimed at reintroducing the native species back to the area.

Once abundant on Puget Sound beaches, Olympia oysters have all but disappeared in the region. Most shellfish connoisseurs consider the Olympia oyster, which is usually less than 2-inches wide and 2-inches long, a delicacy. And that is partly the reason the oysters were nearly harvested to extinction more than a century ago.

To satisfy a voracious demand for shellfish, Olympia oysters were harvested in great numbers in the mid-1800s. Most of the oysters were shipped to San Francisco during California’s booming gold rush years. By 1880, abundant Olympia oyster stocks throughout the Puget Sound were nearly wiped out. As the Olympia oyster began to disappear, the shellfish industry began importing Japanese Pacific oysters to the region. The larger Pacific oysters quickly took over cultivated beds once home to thriving Olympia oysters.

But over-harvest and displacement were only partly to blame. Pollution from western Washington industries, particularly pulp and paper mills, and the loss of habitat to development also played significant roles in the Olympia oysters’ demise.

Indian tribes have always valued the Olympia, which is western Washington’s only native oyster. The Olympia was not only an important source of food for the coastal Indians in the area, but the oyster also was a valuable trading item.

Today, the Skokomish, Suquamish, Squaxin and Jamestown S’Klallam tribes, along with the Lummi Nation are working with others to help bring Olympia oysters back to the region’s beaches. Others involved in the restoration project include the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, the Puget Sound Restoration Fund, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington Department of Natural Resources and Taylor Shellfish Farms.

“This project is a unique community venture,” Sparkman said. “A lot of different groups have been brought together for a common goal: to re-establish the native Olympia oyster.”

The brood oysters for the Skokomish sites were collected from beaches along Hood Canal and spawned at a state shellfish laboratory in 2002. The seed, attached to Pacific oyster shells, was placed in the growing plots throughout the Skokomish River estuary. At some sites, shells, bearing the young oysters, are attached to a rope stretched between two posts. The rope keeps the oysters in ideal growing conditions, above the muddy bottom but below the water.

Along with the Skokomish sites, Olympia oysters also are being cultivated at Budd Inlet and Squaxin Island near Olympia; and Liberty Bay and Brownsville near Poulsbo. If the project is successful at these sites, recreational harvests of Olympias, currently prohibited , could take place in a few years.

“The intent is to rebuild stocks of naturally spawning populations of Olympia oysters on historic grounds in Puget Sound and the Washington coast,” said Dave Fyfe, Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission shellfish biologist. “It’s a lengthy process but, eventually, we hope to see good survival and good growth of these oysters, to the point that they are not only reproducing but repopulating an area.”

(END)

For more information, contact: Eric Sparkman, shellfish biologist for the Skokomish Tribe, (360) 877-5213, erics@skokomish.org. Dave Fyfe, shellfish biologist for the NWIFC, (360) 598-6077, dfyfe@nwifc.org. Darren Friedel, information officer for the NWIFC, (360) 297-6546, dfriedel@nwifc.org.

Photos available: Photos of an Olympia oyster survey can be e-mailed. Contact Darren Friedel at the above number.

Representatives of the Makah, Quileute and Hoh tribes and the Quinault Indian Nation are proposing to continue strict