Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
1103376
label
Fishing Rights - U.S. v. Washington
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
1103376
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Fishing Rights - U.S. v. Washington
citationUrl
collections
Bradley H. Patterson Files (Ford Administration)
Bradley Patterson's Native American Programs Files
subjects
Washington (D.C.)
Indians of North America
Fishing rights
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
1103376
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1976-10-01
month
10
year
1976
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1974-06-01
month
6
year
1974
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
5878748a5b709131
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 2, folder "Fishing Rights - U.S. V. Washington"
of the Bradley H. Patterson Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald Ford donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Digitized from Box 2 of the Bradley H. Patterson Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 18, 1976
NOTE TO BILL BAROODY
Subject: Important Note re the President's Trip to
the State of Washington and Seattle
A subject of great political and public interest in the
Seattle area right now is the decision of Judge Boldt in the US V
Washington Indian fishing rights case. This decision was made about 3
years ago, has been affirmed by the U.S Court of Appeals and certiorari
has been d enied by the Supreme Court, so it is final and the law of
the land.
The decision reaffirms the Indians' treaty rights (of
1855) The to the salmon run in the Puget Sound area, and, after
providing for the inviolagility of the spawning run, says that the
Treaties did in fact guarantee the Indians the right to 50% of the catch.
These rights have been covered up and tramped on by local
and State officials, and commercial and sports fishermen for 120 years;
now they have been reaffirmed for the Indians in a landmark decision
in the protection of Indian trust rights. The U.S. Government argued
strongly for the kind of decision Ju ge Boldt made, since the Government
is the trustee for Indian rights and thus must uphold these rights and
be the advocate for them.
Of ourse State, local, commercial and sports fishermen
are unhappy about the decision; Lloyd Meeds got a lob of pressure ab out
it. The President will be pressured, I th nk, to disavow or criticize
or express personal disagreame with the decision. This would be a
mistake of the first order.
BERALOF, FORD LIBRARY
Americans generally (not just Indians) are slowly beginning
to recognize that the government is at last stepping up to d efend
Indian treaty and trust rights; the Head of our Executive Branch
shoul not flinch in this area. the issue of treaty and trust rights
is a bellwether issue among Indian people and among the millions of
Americans who are sympathetic to Indian causes.
If the President is asked about the Boldt decision, his
response should be:
1. It's the law of the land, as decided by the Courts.
2. Indian treaty rights are impo tant and their trustee, the
Federal Government, has to be mindful of those rights.
3. The answer now is to have Indians andnon-Indians
both get into the hatchery business more, and expand the
basic supply of samon for everybody.
Bred
Bradley H. Patterson, Jr.
FORD :- LIGRARY 028ALD
" flles Kilberg
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Washington, D.C. 20520
Fr Fisheries Is
June 21, 1974
Mr. Bradly Patterson
Executive Office Building
Room 182
Washington, D. C. 20500
Dear Mr. Patterson:
I am enclosing a statement which deals with our
overall position.
If I can be of any further assistance, please do
hesitate to call upon me.
Sincerely,
Roger Hull
Roger Hull
Enc.
632 -8702
9514
CC suit to Marten Since
FORD is LIDRAVI 072918
The United States Views on the Fisheries Question
The United States has proposed, in the law of the
sea negotiations, treaty articles which would provide an
effective legal basis for the conservation and efficient
utilization of the distinct kinds of fish stocks of the
world's oceans. In so doing, the articles would provide
for extensive coastal or host state jurisdiction over
coastal and anadromous fisheries stocks to the limits of
their range and international or regional management of
highly migratory species.
Fisheries Management
Under the U.S. proposals the coastal state would
have a preferential right to that portion of the allowable
catch of coastal species which it could harvest. Anadromous
species (those fish, such as salmon which return to fresh
water to spawn) would be subject to the control of the host
state (i.e., the coastal state where the spawning rivers are
located) to the limit of their migratory range. Highly
migratory stocks, such as tuna, which migrate over vast
distances, would be managed by international and regional
organizations in which all fishing and interested coastal
states could participate.
The United States proposals reflect several prin-
cipal objectives.
Full Utilization of Stocks
The coastal state could reserve to itself that
portion of the allowable catch of coastal and anadromous
stocks which it can harvest, but would have to permit ves-
sels of other states to fish for the remainder under rea-
sonable conditions so as to ensure full utilization of such
stocks, consistent with maintaining the productivity of the
ecosystem and taking into account the effect of such fishing
on other species. Access would be provided in a manner which
would permit traditional fishing on the basis of a formula
to be negotiated. The coastal state could charge a reasonable
management fee for those participating in the fishery. The
regulation of highly migratory stocks would be carried out
by the pertinent international or regional organization, in
which all coastal and other interested states would have an
equal right to participate.
FORD LIBRANY is
- 2 -
Sound Conservation Principles
Standards would be set which would serve two major
bjectives: attaining maximum long-term benefits from the
ocean's living resources, and ensuring meaningful worldwide
conservation and environmental protection. In order to
achieve these objectives, the coastal state or the regional
or international organization (in the case of tuna) would
set an allowable catch based on the best scientific evidence
available and consistent with certain qualifications (environ-
mental and economic) which would make possible the achieve-
ment of maximum sustainable yield through time. This would
provide the management authority with needed flexibility in
the management of fisheries stocks.
Adequate Enforcement Measures
With respect to coastal and anadromous species, the
coastal state could inspect and arrest any vessel fishing in
violation of its regulations. It could try and punish vessels
of a foreign state, provided that where the flag state of the
vessel has established procedures for trial and punishment
for violation of coastal state regulations, the coastal state
would turn the vessel over to the flag state for trial and
punishment in which case it would be notified of the results
by the flag state. Provision is also made in the U.S. articles
for the inspection and arrest of vessels violating the regula-
tions of international fisheries organizations where authorized
by the organization.
Dispute Settlement
Disputes concerning the interpretation of the Law of
the Sea Convention would be subject to dispute settlement
procedures as provided in the Convention.
Assistance to Developing States
A provision for the establishment of an international
group of independent fisheries experts to assist developing
states is included in the U.S. fisheries articles.
Highly Migratory and Anadromous Stocks
Highly Migratory Stocks
Special provision is made in our articles for regu-
lating highly migratory stocks within the framework of regional
- 3 -
or international organizations. Due to the biological
characteristics of these stocks they cannot be effectively
managed by the separate coastal states. All commercially
valuable species of tuna are characterized by high mobility
and long migrations over vast reaches of the ocean. Although
their spawning habits are not well-known, it has been estab-
lished that they generally spawn in the open ocean rather
than in some defined areas. Due to these unique biological
characteristics, they require special techniques for harvest-
ing and for management. Conservation measures, if they are
to be effective, must be applied to the stock as a whole.
In the case of a highly migratory stock, this can only be
accomplished through international standards. In appraising
the measures man can take to influence the productivity of
these fish, it would seem to be limited to measures to ensure
that the stock as a whole is not overfished. Such a conserva-
tion measure can only be effective if it is applied through
an international organization. Any other system would not
allow for full utilization of the resource consistent with
maintaining the productivity of the ecological system while at
the same time preventing overfishing.
Highly migratory species present special harvesting
and utilization problems. Since fishing grounds shift with
migrations of the fish, the most efficient commercial exploit-
ation is carried on by high speed, long range vessels. If
artificial constraints are placed on the harvesting of tuna,
such as might be the case with coastal state regulation, a
substantial portion of the tuna fishing could be limited to
very small, low efficiency vessels operating within each
national zone. This could cause efficiency to drop, and
cause reductions in catch, a diminishing supply of tuna
available for world food markets, and higher prices.
Because the availability of tunas in certain areas
is variable, some coastal states might find their available
catch widely fluctuating from year to year. Countries with
short coastlines would most likely be excluded from the
fishery unless they were able to establish a high seas fleet,
the cost of tuna would rise, and the supply of available tuna
would drop.
Since the migratory patterns differ from year to
year, depending on natural factors such as availability of
food, it cannot be certain that the same amount of tuna can
be caught each year off any country. If that country's
industry must depend on the tuna caught just in a 200-mile
zone off its coast, it cannot be economically viable with such
an unstable supply condition.
FORD LIBRARY & SERVID
- 4 -
The best way to ensure long-term conservation and
the development of tuna is to provide for management through
regional or international organizations composed of all
interested nations.
Anadromous Stocks
Special provision is also made in the U.S. articles
for extensive regulation of anadromous stocks by the host
state throughout their migratory range (regardless of whether
they are off the coast of the host state). This provision is
necessary to ensure effective management of these stocks.
Anadromous fish, by virtue of their habits, are exceptionally
vulnerable to exploitation. These stocks range far out into
the high seas and intermingle substantially. The fish return
to the individual streams of origin, and thus each stream
supports an individual salmon run. It is when they return
to fresh water to spawn that they have reached their maximum
growth and that selective harvesting can take place. If these
stocks are fished indiscriminately and non-selectively far
out from the coast, the breeding stock of individual stream
systems may be destroyed. Thus, conservation and management
authority is necessary over these stocks as far off-shore as
they range. Furthermore, in order to maintain viable anadromous
stocks, it is necessary that a certain number be allowed to
spawn each year. It is only during the period that the fish
return to the breeding grounds in their streams of origin that
accurate estimates of the condition of the stock can be made,
and the proper number be allowed to escape for spawning and
only the remainder be harvested.
Anadromous fish such as salmon depend on the fresh
water environment for their survival and thus pose special
problems for the host state. If the salmon stock is to remain
viable, the host state must ensure that the fresh water spawn-
ing streams used by the salmon are able to support the yearly
runs. Natural obstacles such as log jams or rock slides must
be cleared. Man-made obstacles such as hydroelectric or flood
control dams must be specially designed so as to allow the
salmon to pass upstream; water diversion systems (such as
irrigation) or industrial run-off must be controlled. There
must be special pollution and silting control measures imple-
mented, etc. All of these direct outlays as well as the
indirect cost of curtailing industrialization and commerce
along major river systems represent a major investment by the
host state. Since such a heavy and continuing investment
is required by the host state, it is only appropriate that
its investments in the anadromous stocks be protected and that
and that its fishermen be given preferential harvesting rights.
Therefore, it is the host state that should logically be responsible
for the setting of conservation and harvesting regulations.
SPARTMENT
OF
STAT
BUREAU OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS
special report
Department of State
Office of Media Services
STATES
OF
U.N. Law of the Sea Conference 1974
In June 1974 Caracas, Venezuela, will be
usher in an era of cooperation and develop-
the site of the Third U.N. Conference on the
ment, or whether the oceans will serve instead
Law of the Sea-one of the most important
as an increasing source of conflict among na-
international conferences to take place since
tions.
World War II. Some 150 nations, 119 of which
are coastal states, will focus on the problem
of bringing greater legal order to 70 percent of
BACKGROUND
the world's surface-the seas. Discussions will
embrace such wide-ranging issues as the width
In 1958 and again in 1960, at the First and
of the territorial sea, unimpeded passage
Second United Nations Conferences on the
through and over international straits, living
Law of the Sea, the nations of the world at-
resources, mineral resources of the continental
tempted to resolve the problems associated
margins and the deep seabed, marine environ-
with competing uses of the oceans. The four
Geneva Conventions on Law of the Sea that
ment protection and scientific research, and
settlement of disputes.
emerged from the first conference were par-
The choice is whether the international
tially successful in codifying the international
law of the sea. These conventions were the
community can agree on a comprehensive
Convention on the Territorial Sea and the
legal regime for the world's oceans which will
Contiguous Zone, the Convention on the High
Seas, the Convention on the Continental
Shelf, and the Convention on Fishing and Con-
CONTENTS
servation of the Living Resources of the High
Seas. Neither in 1958 nor in 1960, however,
Introduction and Background
I
were nations able to agree on the breadth of
the territorial sea, the extent of fisheries juris-
Territorial Sea, Transit Through Straits
2
diction, or the outer limits of the coastal states'
Living Resources
3
exclusive rights over continental shelf resour-
ces. These traditional problems were soon
Mineral Resources: Continental Margins
4
combined with new problems-for example,
the growing need for protection of the marine
Mineral Resources: Deep Seabed
5
environment and such uncertainties resulting
Marine Environment Protection
5
from advances in technology as the mining of
manganese nodules from the deep seabed.
Marine Scientific Research
6
With these unresolved problems as back-
ground, in December 1970, the U.N. General
Settlement of Disputes
6
This paper is based on a recent statement by John
FORD
The Challenge
7
Norton Moore, Deputy Special Representative of the
President for the Law of the Sea Conference before
Charts
7
the House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee
LIDARRY
on Immigration, Citizenship, and International Law.
2
3
U.S. OBJECTIVES AT THE CONFERENCE
govern passage in the territorial sea. Unlike
petroleum and other basic imports. All nations
the territorial sea in general, international
must have reliable international legal rights to
Internationally agreed limits to the territorial sea.
straits serve as access and connecting points
bring necessary resources through international
Unimpeded transit through and over international straits.
for large areas of the oceans. As such, transit
straits.
Full utilization and conservation of fish resources.
International standards defining rights and duties of states with respect to exploitation of marine re-
through straits is essential to meaningful exer-
sources.
cise of the high seas rights of all states in these
For these reasons we have repeatedly stated
A satisfactory international legal system for the rational and efficient development of the mineral re-
vast areas. Functionally, then, straits are quite
that agreement on a 12-mile territorial sea
sources of the deep seabeds.
distinct from other territorial sea areas. And
must be coupled with agreement on unimped-
Marine scientific research rights and obligations.
ed transit of international straits, which to-
because of their special prominence, the po-
Preservation and protection of the marine environment.
tential for conflict from an uncertain legal
gether constitute basic elements of our nation-
Agreement on compulsory settlement of disputes.
regime is greatly increased in straits.
al policy,
U.S. Proposals. To avoid these and other
LIVING RESOURCES
difficulties, the United States has submitted a
Assembly scheduled a comprehensive confer-
Such an extension of the territorial sea from
draft treaty article that would provide a right
The oceans are no longer a great cornucopia
ence on the law of the sea to commence in
3 to 12 miles, however, would overlap more
of unimpeded navigation through and over
of endless supplies of fish. The advent of more
1973. The U.N. Seabed Committee, which has
than 100 straits between 6 and 24 miles in
international straits. This right is less than that
efficient fishing techniques and a growing de-
held six sessions since its formation, was charged
width which, under a 3-mile territorial sea,
presently exercised under existing high seas
mand for fisheries products have led to serious
with preparations for a conference to deal with:
now include high seas. Because of the impor-
principles and is limited to a right in interna-
depletion of some stocks and have demon-
tance of straits as avenues for international
tional straits to move through the strait in the
strated that there is a pressing need for a ra-
- A multilateral treaty regime for the
navigation, the United States has coupled its
normal mode for the vessel or aircraft.
tional conservation and allocation system for
breadth of the territorial seas;
willingness to agree to a 12-mile territorial sea
the living resources of the oceans. In fact,
- Unimpeded transit through and over in-
with recognition of a treaty right of unimpeded
The United States has also made it clear
some estimates indicate that the world com-
ternational straits;
transit through and over straits used for inter-
that it recognizes the legitimate safety and
munity is approaching the maximum sustain-
Living resources;
national navigation. Without clear recognition
pollution concerns of straits states. According-
able yield for many traditional species of fish
- Mineral resources of the continental shelf
of such a right of unimpeded transit, it might
ly, we have proposed that surface ships transit-
within the decade (e.g., haddock stocks in the
and margins;
be possible to assert that only the right of in-
ing straits observe the traffic separation
North Atlantic, halibut and salmon in the
Mineral resources of the deep seabed;
nocent passage would apply even in such stra-
schemes of the International Maritime Consul-
North Pacific).
Protection of the marine environment;
tegically important straits as Gibraltar.
tative Organization (IMCO) and that state air-
- Marine scientific research;
The traditional doctrine of innocent pass-
craft normally comply with the regulations
Against this background of increasing fish-
- Settlement of disputes.
age evolved long before the advent of subma-
and procedures of the International Civil Avia-
ing pressure, it is of particular concern that a
rines, supertankers, and aircraft and was prem-
tion Organization (ICAO). We have also pro-
regime be established which will solve the
ised on a narrow territorial sea. Partly be-
posed that strict liability apply for damage
"common pool" problem in fisheries and grant
TERRITORIAL SEA,
TRANSIT THROUGH STRAITS
cause of this historical beginning, the innocent
caused by deviations from such IMCO or
jurisdiction to manage fish stocks which is
passage regime does not permit submerged
ICAO regulations. Our objective is to find a
essentially coextensive with the range of those
transit by submarines or overflight by aircraft.
balance between the reasonable concerns of
stocks.
For nearly 200 years the United States and
many other nations have adhered to a terri-
Moreover, there is an insufficiently agreed in-
straits states and the need of the international
torial sea of 3 miles (the distance of an 18th
ternational understanding of what passage is
community for guarantees of meaningful high
U.S. Position. To meet these needs the
century cannon shot). The United States has
"innocent." As a result there is always a dan-
seas usage. This includes the mobility of mili-
United States has proposed broad coastal state
maintained that 3 miles is the maximum
ger of subjective interpretation of "innocence,"
tary vessels and aircraft which could be seri-
control over coastal (e.g., haddock) and anad-
breadth recognized under international law.
which is defined as passage that is not preju-
ously hampered by restrictions on transit
romous stocks which spawn in fresh water
dicial to the "peace, good order, or security"
through and over straits.
U.S. Position. In an attempt to develop
(e.g., salmon) coextensive with the range of
of the coastal state. Some strait states have
The U.S. straits proposal is not, of course,
worldwide consensus on the breadth of the
each species, and international management
asserted, for example, that large petroleum
limited to military vessels and aircraft. We are
territorial sea, the United States has proposed
of highly migratory species such as tuna.
tankers or nuclear-powered vessels are inher-
equally concerned about unimpeded transit
Under this approach coastal nations would
that, in the context of an overall satisfactory
ently "non-innocent."
for commercial vessels. The energy dilemma
have broad resource management jurisdiction
settlement, it would be willing to accept a 12-
It has never made sense to apply to inter-
mile territorial sea.
has brought widespread attention to the fact
over coastal stocks throughout their migratory
national straits a legal doctrine developed to
that a nation's well-being may be intimately
range. They would also have preferential har-
linked to an adequate and secure supply of
vesting rights-to the limit of their fishing
5
state rights adjacent to a 12-mile territorial sea
capacity-to such coastal stocks within the al-
U.S. Position. To meet these present reali-
MARINE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION
are limited to those needed for resource de-
lowable catch. Other nations would be enti-
ties and to encourage a more definite legal
velopment and that the other high seas free-
Protection of the marine environment was
tled to harvest the remaining allowable catch.
regime, the United States has stated that we
doms remain in the international community.
Coastal nations would also have management
are prepared to accept coastal state resource
one of the largely overlooked subjects at the
jurisdiction and preferential rights over anad-
jurisdiction in a broad coastal seabed economic
1958 and 1960 conferences. In contrast, today
we are acutely aware of the need for such
romous stocks throughout their range on the
area. It is also our position that in this area the
coastal state would have exclusive rights over
MINERAL RESOURCES: DEEP SEABED
protection. The Stockholm Conference on
high seas. Since these species spawn in the
the Human Environment brought worldwide
fresh waters of coastal nations, those nations
offshore installations affecting its economic
must bear the expenses necessary to provide
interests. While we have not indicated a posi-
Beyond the world's continental margins, a
attention to the need for multilateral action
an environment in which the stock can flour-
tion on the limits of such an area, the area
new ocean use is developing. Advanced marine
on this subject. It is widely understood that
ish. Moreover, the concepts of conservation
must be subject to appropriate international
technology will shortly permit the commercial
the Third United Nations Conference on the
and full utilization are best served for these
standards for:
exploitation of manganese nodules from the
Law of the Sea must establish an adequate
jurisdictional basis for protection of the marine
species by harvesting close to the coast as the
deep ocean floor. The orderly development of
fish return from their high seas journey. The
this resource, however, is threatened by differ-
environment against threats from all sources.
Protection of other uses of the area, par-
coastal nation is clearly in the best position to
ing perceptions concerning the applicable legal
ticularly protection of navigation and
This very awareness of the need to protect
manage, conserve, and harvest these anadro-
regime.
other high seas freedoms;
the marine environment, however; may hold a
mous stocks.
- Preservation of the marine environment;
subtle danger for the law of the sea, unless we
Highly migratory species, however, cover
U.S. Position. We believe that timely inter-
Protection of the integrity of agreements
are careful to functionally distinguish the
vast distances through the waters off many
national agreement on an effective interna-
and investments made in the area;
differing threats to the marine environment.
nations. The only practicable way to manage
tional regime for the development of these
Provision for compulsory dispute settle-
Some coastal states have sought jurisdiction
and conserve such highly migratory resources
deep seabed resources is the best way to assure
for protection of the marine environment from
ment;
is through international or regional arrange-
the stable investment climate needed to en-
all sources in an area coextensive with their
Provision for revenue sharing for interna-
ments. Accordingly, our approach provides
courâge development and to insure adequate
tional community purposes.
resource claims. With respect to pollution
for international or regional management for
protection of the marine environment. Such
from exploration and exploitation of seabed
such stocks. No single coastal state is in a posi-
an approach could also provide for the sharing
One potential danger in these negotiations,
resources, coastal states should have this au-
tion to conserve these stocks, and coastal state
of revenues from deep seabed mining for inter-
both with respect to living and non-living re-
thority-subject to an obligation to observe
control would neither provide conservation
national community purposes-particularly
at least minimum international standards. But
sources, is that some coastal states may attempt
protection nor assure coastal nations of an
assistance to developing nations. We are mind-
to acquire exclusive rights to offshore areas in-
with respect to vessel-source pollution, recog-
economically viable fishery for highly migra-
ful that for this approach to be successful the
stead of claiming just the functional rights
nition of coastal state jurisdiction to make and
tory species.
international community must conçlude a
necessary for efficient development of the re-
enforce pollution prevention standards (such
timely agreement and one which will genuinely
sources of these areas.
as construction standards for vessels) could
promote efficient development. In this connec-
seriously endanger freedom of navigation.
MINERAL RESOURCES:
One key to a successful conference will be
tion we have indicated that we would not view
CONTINENTAL MARGINS
to separate jurisdiction over resources from
agreement as timely unless it were reached in
If each of the 119 coastal nations had juris-
jurisdiction over navigational freedoms and
accordance with the U.N. General Assembly
diction to set construction standards for vessels,
The Continental Shelf Convention allows
other non-resource uses and to carefully safe-
schedule calling for completion of the work of
a hodgepodge of conflicting standards would
coastal states exclusive rights to explore and
guard the non-resource uses. History has dem-
the conference in 1974 or 1975 at the latest.
result. Such jurisdiction would also permit
exploit these natural resources out to the 200-
onstrated that nations making claims to juris-
decisions on standards to be made solely by
meter isobath, and beyond, to where the depth
diction over high seas areas for one purpose
Similarly, for an international approach to
coastal nations without the careful balancing
of the superjacent waters admits of exploita-
have a tendency to expand those claims to
be successful, the agreement must genuinely
of maritime and coastal interests which would
tion.
jurisdiction for other purposes. For example,
promote efficient development. We believe
result from an international solution.
Since World War II there have been a num-
the figure of 12 miles was first used almost
that such development will best be served by
ber of technological improvements which have
entirely in connection with claims for an ex-
a legal order which permits access to the re-
Moreover, if coastal nations were to have
allowed offshore production to take place in
clusive fishing zone. Today, approximately
sources of the deep seabed under reasonable
jurisdiction capable of affecting navigational
increasingly deeper water. It is now clear that
half of the world's coastal nations claim a 12-
conditions that will facilitate investment. For
freedom in an area as broad as 200 miles, a
seabed resource jurisdiction could extend well
mile territorial sea. Even the extreme 200-mile
that reason, any machinery to be established
majority of all those coastal nations would be
beyond the 200-meter depth though there is
territorial sea claims seem to have their genesis
could not have discretion to deny access to
totally zone-locked with no access to any
still uncertainty as to the outer limit of such
largely in resource concerns. It is important,
those resources or to alter the conditions upon
ocean on which they face without being sub-
jurisdiction.
then, that the conference insure that coastal
which security of investment depends.
jected to the jurisdiction of their neighbors.
6
7
U.S. Position. We have strongly urged that
qualified institution with a view to purely
to these problems without waiting for the pro-
In meeting that challenge the best guide is
standards for vessel source pollution should
scientific research.
cess of international ratification to bring the
a careful functional division of ocean uses. The
only be set internationally through IMCO, by
Such nations would also insure that the
new treaty into full force. The concept of pro-
nature of highly migratory species requires a
flag states for their own vessels, or by port
coastal state had appropriate opportunities to
visional application is well respected in inter-
different jurisdictional regime than that appro-
states for vessels using their ports.
participate or be represented in the research
national law and would in no way prejudge the
priate for coastal and anadromous species.
project, either directly or through an appropri-
negotiation.
Similarly, the prevention of pollution from
ate international institution; that all data and
seabed exploration and exploitation requires
MARINE SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH
samples were shared with the coastal state;
a different regime than that for vessel-source
that significant research results were suitably
THE CHALLENGE
pollution. Some approaches-e.g., those which
Marine research has benefited all mankind
published; that the coastal state was assisted
seek to resolve (1) the problem of international
and will become even more important in the
in assessing the data and results; and that there
The Third United Nations Conference on
straits by assimilating them to national terri-
years ahead as we seek greater information
was compliance with all applicable interna-
the Law of the Sea is, in a very real sense, en-
tory or (2) the problems of rational resource
needed for adequate protection and rational
tional environmental standards.
gaged in drafting a basic charter for over two-
management by an extension of the territorial
use of the marine environment. While inter-
We believe this approach achieves a better
thirds of the earth's surface. In drafting that
sea-have no place in a modern law of the sea.
national law generally recognizes freedom of
balance between the interests of coastal na-
charter the challenge is to strengthen shared
The United States is going to Caracas pre-
research beyond the territorial sea, the existing
tions and the international community than a
community rights in the oceans, including
pared to negotiate a comprehensive oceans
Continental Shelf Convention subjects research
consent regime. Similarly, we are convinced
navigational freedoms and marine scientific
law treaty. If the conference can keep before
concerning the continental shelf and under-
that this approach is in the common interest
research, while building a more definite and
it the fundamental need to examine each issue
taken there to the consent of the coastal state.
of all nations in better promoting a free flow
rational regime for the use of the resources of
on its merits, it will be well on the way to a
The Shelf Convention, though, also creates an
of scientific knowledge about the earth we
the oceans, protection of the marine environ-
new treaty that will serve the common interest
obligation normally not to withhold consent
share in common.
ment, and resolution of disputes.
of all nations.
if the request is submitted by a qualified insti-
tution with a view to purely scientific research
into the physical or biological characteristics
SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES
of the continental shelf. There is a further
MEDIAN LINE BOUNDARIES
proviso that the coastal state shall have the
It is important that any comprehensive
BETWEEN SOVEREIGN STATES
right, if it SO desires, to participate or to be
oceans law treaty also establish adequate ma-
ADJACENT COASTS
OPPOSITE COASTS
represented in the research and that, in any
chinery for the settlement of disputes. Machin-
event, the results shall be published.
ery which would insure compulsory third-party
Unfortunately, the experience with the
settlement of disputes arising under the treaty
Shelf Convention regime for scientific research
would serve to minimize conflict as well as
STATE A"
has not been good. Some states have arbitrarily
contribute to increased stability of expecta-
denied consent. Others have imposed burden-
tions.
some conditions on research or simply not re-
STATE
U.S. Proposals. We have proposed the cre-
plied to the request for permission.
ation of a new oceans tribunal which would
U.S. Position. We feel that it is preferable
have broad jurisdiction to deal with such dis-
to meet the legitimate concerns of coastal na-
putes. We particularly hope that this issue can
MEDIAN LINE
MEDIAN LINE
BOUNDARY FOR
BOUNDARY FOR
tions by creating a series of obligations which
be addressed early in the conference and that
ADJACENT COASTS
OPPOSITE COASTS
are binding on the researching nations, rather
all nations will recognize their strong interest
than by giving-coastal nations the right to
in adequate dispute settlement procedures.
withhold consent. Accordingly, we have pro-
To insure that advancing technology will
posed that a nation planning a research voyage
not overtake the ability of the international
in areas where the coastal state has resource
community to achieve cooperative solutions,
SHELF
jurisdiction should be required to provide the
the United States has also proposed that por-
concerned coastal nations with reasonable ad-
tions of the new ocean law treaty, particularly
TERRITORIAL
STATE "B"
SEA
Island
State
vance notification of its intent to engage in
those relating to deep seabed mining and fish-
Island
research off their shores. Researching states
eries, should go into force on a provisional
State
would certify that the research will be con-
basis. Provisional application of those portions
ducted in accordance with the treaty by a
of the treaty would enable a timely solution
8
CONTINENTAL SHELF in PROFILE
(VERTICAL SCALE EXAGGERATED)
LAND
COASTLINE
- OUTERRITIONAL OF SEA
DEPTH IN METERS
SEA LEVEL
SUPERJACENT
200
SENED
WATERS
CONTINENTAL SHELF
400
PHYSICAL VERSION
600
CONTINENTAL SHELF
800
LEGAL VERSION
TO INDEFINITE
DISTANCE
THE STRAIGHT BASELINE
ALONG DEEPLY INDENTED COAST OR one FRINGED WITH ISLANDS
HIGH SEAS
(Also Continental Shelf)
TERRITORIAL SEA
INTERNAL WATER
SEGMENT OF STRAIGHT BASELINE
OUTER LIMIT OF THE
TERRITORIAL SEA
form
GERALD
6
FORD
LISEARY
10
THE BASELINE
FROM WHICH THE TERRITORIAL SEA IS MEASURED
Semi-circle larger
Baseline
Closure
than water area
Outer limit of terri-
torial sea
3
0
5
10
15
20
25
Scale in Nautical Miles
Closure at
Indentation
mouth of river
HIGH SEAS
Semi-circle smaller
Bay
than water area
(Also Continental shelf)
I
Archipelago
0
Multi-mouth bay
LAND
DEPARTMENT OF STATE PUBLICATION 8764
Bay on island coast
International Organization and Conference Series 113
TERRITORIAL SEA
Released May 1974
Closure more
Office of Media Services
than 24 miles
INTERNAL
Bureau of Public Affairs
WATER
Low tide
Pier
elevations
Island
AMERICAN REVOLUTION 1776-1976 WENTENMINAL
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
NOTE:
Copies also sent to:
Leonard Garment
George Dysart, BOX 3621, Room 766
1002 N.E. Holliday Street
Portland, Oregon 97208
Martin Seneca
Morris Thompson
BIA Area Director, Portland
(Sent through Morris Thompson's
office)
Copies that were to be sent to
Charlie Peterson, Gene Parker, and
Forrest Kinley I sent to Mr. Mason
Morisset's office (Ziontz, Pirtle,
Morisset & Ernstoff; 3101 Seattle-First
National Bank Bldg; Seattle, 98154 Wash.
July 15, 1974
RECORD OF ACTION AT THE MEETING ON INDIAN FISHING
RIGHTS: Held at the White House on July 11, 1974
PARTICIPANTS:
White House:
Commerce Department
Bradley H. Patterson, Jr.
Robert Schoning
Jim Spaith
James Brennan
State Department:
Dr. Robert Hutton
Stewart Blow
Justice Department:
William Sullivan
Harry Sachse
Mrs. West
Indian Representatives:
Mr. Feldman
Mason Morisset, attorney
Interior Department:
Charlie Peterson
Kent Frizzell
Gene Parker
Larry Aschenbrenner
Forrest Kinley
ACTIONS AGREED UPON
1. General
ADDRESS
It was agreed that the defense and protection of Indian treaty fishing
rights in the instant circumstances and as defined by Judge Boldt
are a part of the trust responsibilities which the United States
Government bears.
2. Interim Measures
It was agreed that the representatives of the Departments of State
and Commerce would orally instruct the U.S. Members of the
International Pacific Salmon Fisheries Commission (IPSFC) to
raise again, at the July 12 meeting of the Commission, the proposal
earlier made on behalf of American Indian fisherman and denied by
the Commission, i.e. that the Commission authorize two extra days
of fishing per week during the current season to Indian fisherman in
their usual and accustomed places in order to permit compliance
- 2 -
with the U.S. V Washington decision. It was further agreed that
these instructions would include reference to the White House
meeting and to the possibility, if necessary, that this matter
might have to be raised at a government to government level
between Washington and Ottawa.
3. Longer-Term Measure
The draft proposed IPSFC Regulation attached hereto as Annex A
is to be examined first by Mr. Morisset and his Indian colleagues
and then, with their comments if any, by the U.S. government
officers attending the meeting with the intent that the U.S. Members
of the Commission may be instructed to submit it to the plenary
Commission as a supplement to standing Commission regulations.
3. Consultation with Indian Representatives
In view of the policy principle about full Indian participation set
forth in the President's Message of July 8, 1970:
A. It was agreed that State and Commerce would raise with the
U.S. Members of the Commission the question of naming an Indian
as a U.S. member of the Advisory Council to the Commission.
B. In the interim before the above step becomes a reality, it
was agreed that the U.S. Members of the Commission would be
asked to establish an informal consultative relationship between
those Members and appropriate representatives of the newly-formed
Indian Fisheries Commission (the text of Constitution and By-Laws
of the new Indian Fisheries Commission is attached as Annex B).
4. Indian Share of Sockeye Salmon Harvest
As an information item, the Indian representatives provided a table
showing the Sockeye Salmon catch of the last three years; it is attached
here as Annex c.
Bradley H. Patterson, Jr.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
July 15, 1974
RECORD OF ACTION AT THE MEETING ON INDIAN FISHING
RIGHTS: Held at the White House on July 11, 1974
PARTICIPANTS:
White House:
Commerce Department
Bradley H. Patterson, Jr.
Robert Schoning
Jim Spaith
James Brennan
State Department:
Dr. Robert Hutton
Stewart Blow
Justice Department:
William Sullivan
Harry Sachse
Mrs. West
Indian Representatives:
Mr. Feldman
Mason Morisset, attorney
Interior Department:
Charlie Peterson
Kent Frizzell
Gene Parker
Larry Aschenbrenner
Forrest Kinley
ACTIONS AGREED UPON
FORD & LIBRARY 01V839
1. General
It was agreed that the defense and protection of Indian treaty fishing
rights in the instant circumstances and as defined by Judge Boldt
are a part of the trust responsibilities which the United States
Government bears.
2. Interim Measures
It was agreed that the representatives of the Departments of State
and Commerce would orally instruct the U.S. Members of the
International Pacific Salmon Fisheries Commission (IPSFC) to
raise again, at the July 12 meeting of the Commission, the proposal
earlier made on behalf of American Indian fisherman and denied by
the Commission, i.e. that the Commission authorize two extra days
of fishing per week during the current season to Indian fisherman in
their usual and accustomed places in order to permit compliance
- 2 -
with the U.S. V Washington decision. It was further agreed that
these instructions would include reference to the White House
meeting and to the possibility, if necessary, that this matter
might have to be raised at a government to government level
between Washington and Ottawa.
3. Longer-Term Measure
The draft proposed IPSFC Regulation attached hereto as Annex A
is to be examined first by Mr. Morisset and his Indian colleagues
and then, with their comments if any, by the U.S. government
officers attending the meeting with the intent that the U.S. Members
of the Commission may be instructed to submit it to the plenary
Commission as a supplement to standing Commission regulations.
3. Consultation with Indian Representatives
In view of the policy principle about full Indian participation set
forth in the President's Message of July 8, 1970:
A. It was agreed that State and Commerce would raise with the
U.S. Members of the Commission the question of naming an Indian
as a U.S. member of the Advisory Council to the Commission.
B. In the interim before the above step becomes a reality, it
was agreed that the U.S. Members of the Commission would be
asked to establish an informal consultative relationship between
those Members and appropriate representatives of the newly-formed
Indian Fisheries Commission (the text of Constitution and By-Laws
of the new Indian Fisheries Commission is attached as Annex B).
4. Indian Share of Sockeye Salmon Harvest
As an information item, the Indian representatives provided a table
showing the Sockeye Salmon catch of the last three years; it is attached
here as Annex C.
Bourly Bradley H. Patterson, Jr
Detween the United states and Canada WELL
purposes, the following language is offered:
Draft Proposal for IPSFC Regulation
"The Dominion of Canada and the United States of
America are authorized to take such action as is
necessary to comply with domestic law applicable
to the fishing rights of their citizens; Provided,
however, (1) that the Commission be notified at
least 24 hours in advance of any such action that
falls within the regulatory concern of the Commission,
(2) that such action must be taken within the season
and gear limitations of the Commission's regulations,
(3) that no such action may disturb the equal shar-
ing of the harvestable catch as between the Dominion
of Canada and the United States of America or adversely
affect the spawning escapement, and (4) that the Com-
mission may modify or rescind any such action by emergency
order.
"
FORD LIBRARY +
CONSTITUTION AND BYLAWS
of the
INDIAN FISHERIES COMMISSION
PREAMBLE
We, the Indians of the Pacific Northwest, recognize that our fisheries are at
basic and important natural resource and of vital concern to the Indians of
this state and that the conservation of this resource is dependent upon
effective and progressive management. We further believe that by unity of
action we can best accomplish these things, not only for the benefit of our
own people but for all of the people of the Pacific Northwest.
ARTICLE I - NAME
The name of this organization shall be the Indian Fisheries Commission.
ARTICLE II - MEMBERSHIP
Sec. 1. Membership shall be open to an Indian tribe in Washington who:
a. Is recognized as a tribe by Federal Treaty, statute, agreement
or regulation, and who
b. Is organized and operating under a constitution and bylaws, and
who
c. Submits to the Commission a duly authorized Ordinance regulating
the tribal fishery, and who
d. Ratifies this Constitution and Bylaws by appropriate tribal
resolution.
Sec. 2. Each member tribe may revise at any time the Ordinance submitted
under Sec. 1. C. of this Article.
ARTICLE III - GOVERNING BODY
Sec. 1. The governing body shall be the Commission. The Commission shall
consist of 5 members elected from each of the 5 treaty areas in Western
Washington, i.e., Makah, Quinault, Medicine Creek, Point No Point and
Point Elliot.
Sec. 2. a. The member tribes in the treaty area shall organize into a
Treaty Council. The Treaty Council members in each treaty area,
who shall be qualified by resolution to act on behalf of their
tribes, shall meet prior to the regular annual meeting of the
Commission and elect the members to represent such treaty areas on
the Commission. Such elections shall be held in accordance with
rules and regulations prescribed by the Treaty Council members in
each treaty area,
b. The treaty area will present a resolution to the Commission
notifying them of their duly elected and authorized representatives
of seid treaty area.
Sec. 3. The term of office of each Commissioner shall be three years. The
first elected Commissioners shall have terms as follows: First Commissioner
for each treaty area - three years; Second Commissioner for each treaty area -
two years; Third Commissioner for each treaty area - one year. Each year there-
after one Commissioner for each treaty area will be elected for a term of three
years.
Sec. 4. For the purpose of determining Treaty Council membership for the
treaty area elections, only those tribes who meet Sec. 1. e., b. and d.,
Article III, and who are presently operating under tribal fishing regulations
shall be deemed qualified to vote.
Sec. 5. a. The Commission shall call at least annually a general meeting
of all treaty areas of the Treaty Council to report in writing
on the business transacted by the Commission.
b. A special meeting of the Commission can be called by the Chairman
at the request of the Commission member of any treaty area,
ARTICLE IV - OFFICERS
Sec. 1. The officers of the Commission shall be Chairman, Vice-Chairman,
and shall be elected by the members of the Commission.
Sec. 2. The term of office of each officer shall be for one year and shall
commence with the regular meeting, except the first elected officers shall
serve until the first regular election.
ARTICLE V- VACANCIES and REMOVAL
Sec. 1. If a Commissioner or official shall die, resign, permanently leave
the state or area which he represents, or shall be found guilty of a crime or
misdemeanor involving dishonesty by any court, the Treaty Council shall
declare the position vacant and shall elect a replacement for the balance of the
unexpired term.
Sec. 2. Any Treaty Council may by a majority affirmative vote replace their
Commission member for cause. Before any vote for replacement is taken on the
matter, such member shall be given an opportunity to answer any and all charges
at a designated Treaty Council meeting; the decision of the Treaty Council shall
be final.
ARTICLE VI - - DUTIES OF OFFICERS
Sec. 1. The chairman shall preside over all meetings of the Commission, shall
perform all duties of a Chairman and exercise any authority delegated to him
by the Commission, or Regional Board, He shall vote in all matters.
Sec. 2. The Vice-Chairman shall assist the Chairman when called upon to do so
and in the absence of the Chairman he shall preside. When presiding he shall
have all the rights, privileges, and duties as well as the responsibilities of
the Chairman,
Sec. 3. The duties of the officers and any appointive committees or officers
may be further defined by appropriate resolution of the Commission.
ARTICLE VII MEETINGS
Sec. 1. a. The conduct and procedure of the meetings may be further defined
by appropriate resolution of the Commission.
b. A quorem shall consist of 3 or more Commissioners.
ARTICLE VIII POWERS OF THE COMMISSION
Sec. 1. The Commission shall have the following powers:
a. Formulate a broad general fisheries program designed to promote
and coordinate the conservation practices of the members.
b. Request technical advice and/or assistance from any source
whatever for the purpose of assisting Indian fisheries and to
consult with any and all individuals, organizations, institutions,
and governments (tribal, local, state, federal and international)
on matters pertaining to fisheries.
C. To render any assistance within the authority of the Commission
to any tribe, requesting such assistance.
d. To levy dues on the member tribes, subject to the unanimous
approval of the full membership of the Treaty Council.
e. To accept funds from state, federal, private foundations or
other sources for operations, when not in conflict with funding
efforts of individual tribes.
f. To provide public information,
Sec. 2. Any and all rights and powers vested in the member tribes shall not
be abridged by this Constitution.
ARTICLE IX - AMENDMENTS
This Constitution and Bylaws may be amended by majority vote of the member tribes.
ARTICLE X - RATIFICATION
This Constitution and Bylaws shall be in full force and effect when ratified
by all member tribes. Passed this
8
day of
July
1974,
at the regular council meeting held on July 8, 1974.
.
Signed: Lang S Cirley
CATCH OF SOCKEYE SALMON IN AREAS 1 AND 2
1971
1972
1973
Non-
Non-
Non-
Indian
Indian
Indian
Indian
Indian
Indian
Point Roberts
3,184
1,063,370
3,622
489,956
5,562
940,110
Rosario
1,381
468,277
1,645
221,673
3,232
452,801
Salmon Banks
1,519
955,061
2,119
285,721
10,126
1,087,212
San Juans
0
24,351
0
4,599
0
12,537
Stuart Island
0
19,282
0
1,390
0
152,199
West Beach
21
50,685
22
60,669
0
20,879
Port Angeles
0
31,675
789
21,839
34
8,486
Clallam Bay
16
0
0
3,505
145
18,460
Cape Flattery
5,046
87,880
o
295
4,205
50,562
TOTALS
11,167
2,700,581
8,197
1,089,647
23,270
2,743,246
July 15, 1974
RECORD OF ACTION AT THE MEETING ON INDIAN FISHING
RIGHTS: Held at the White House on July 11, 1974
PARTICIPANTS:
White House:
Commerce Department
Bradley H. Patterson, Jr.
Robert Schoning
Jim Spaith
James Brennan
State Department:
Dr. Robert Hutton
Stewart Blow
Justice Department:
William Sullivan
Harry Sachse
Mrs. West
Indian Representatives:
Mr. Feldman
Mason Morisset, attorney
Interior Department:
Charlie Peterson
Kent Frizzell
Gene Parker
Larry Aschenbrenner
Forrest Kinley
ACTIONS AGREED UPON
1. General
It was agreed that the defense and protection of Indian treaty fishing
rights in the instant circumstances and as defined by Judge Boldt
are a part of the trust responsibilities which the United States
Government bears.
2. Interim Measures
It was agreed that the representatives of the Departments of State
and Commerce would orally instruct the U.S. Members of the
International Pacific Salmon Fisheries Commission (IPSFC) to
raise again, at the July 12 meeting of the Commission, the proposal
earlier made on behalf of American Indian fisherman and denied by
the Commission, i.e. that the Commission authorize two extra days
of fishing per week during the current season to Indian fisherman in
their usual and accustomed places in order to permit compliance
. 4 -
with the U.S. V Washington decision. It was further agreed that
these instructions would include reference to the White House
meeting and to the possibility, if necessary, that this matter
might have to be raised at a government to government level
between Washington and Ottawa.
3. Longer-Term Measure
The draft proposed IPSFC Regulation attached hereto as Annex A
is to be examined first by Mr. Morisset and his Indian colleagues
and then, with their comments if any, by the U.S. government
officers attending the meeting with the intent that the U.S. Members
of the Commission may be instructed to submit it to the plenary
Commission as a supplement to standing Commission regulations.
3. Consultation with Indian Representatives
In view of the policy principle about full Indian participation set
forth in the President's Message of July 8, 1970:
A. It was agreed that State and Commerce would raise with the
U.S. Members of the Commission the question of naming an Indian
as a U.S. member of the Advisory Council to the Commission.
B. In the interim before the above step becomes a reality, it
was agreed that the U.S. Members of the Commission would be
asked to establish an informal consultative relationship between
those Members and appropriate representatives of the newly-formed
Indian Fisheries Commission (the text of Constitution and By-Laws
of the new Indian Fisheries Commission is attached as Annex B).
4. Indian Share of Sockeye Salmon Harvest
As an information item, the Indian representatives provided a table
showing the Sockeye Salmon catch of the last three years; it is attached
here as Annex C.
Bradley H. Patterson, Jr.
2:00 p.m.
July 11
74
Bradley H. Patterson, Jr.
White House
Larry Aschenbrenner
attorney, Interior Dept.
Stewart Blow
State Dept.
William Brewer
general counsel, Commerce Dept.
Harry Sachse
attorney Solicitor General's office, Justice Dept.
Robert Schoning
Commerce Department
William Sullivan
State Department (representing Mr. Blow if he
is unable to come to meeting.)
Robert Hutton
Commerce Department
James Brennan
NOAA Commerce
Kent Frizzell
Interior
International Pacific Salmon Commission Dispute
Mary Beth West -
State
mark Feldman
state
Linda Hagge
OEOB
182
2657
182
July 11, 1974
2:30 p.m.
July 11
74
Bradley H. Patterson, Jr.
White House
Mason Morrisott
Attorney for Indian group
Gene Parker
staff of Morrisott law firm
Charlie Peterson
tribesman from Mackah tribe
International Pacific Salmon Commission Dispute
Linda Hagge
OEOB
182
2657
182
July 11, 1974
7/10/74
LINDA
-
-
Clearance is needed for the following persons for the meeting involving
the International Pacific Salmon Commission Dispute for Thursday,
July 11.
Federal representatives meeting in Room 182 at 2 p.m. will be:
Mr. Larry Aschenbrenner, attorney, Interior Dept.
Mr. Harry Sachse, attorney Solicitor General's office, Justice Dept.
Mr. William Sullivan, State Department (representing Mr. Stewart
Blow)
Mr. Robert Schoning, Commerce Department
Mr. William Brewer, general counsel, Commerce Department
(Commerce may have an additional representative in the morning;
if Mr. Blow recovers from his illness he may be in attendance)
Indian representatives meeting in Room 182 at 2:30 p.m. will be:
Mr. Mason Morrisott, attorney for Indian group
Mr. Charlie Peterson, tribesman from Mackah tribe
Mr. Gene Parker, staff of Morrisott law firm
--JMS gns
GERALD R. LIBRARY FORD
INFINIERIOR OF THE INTERIOR
United States Department of the Interior
OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR
March
1.
1849
PORTLAND REGION, 1002 N.E. HOLLADAY ST.
P.O. Box 3621, Portland, Oregon 97208
July 31, 1974
In reply refer to: GDD
Mr. Bradley H. Patterson, Jr.
The White House
Washington, D. C. 20501
Re: U.S. V. Washington--International Pacific Salmon
Fisheries Commission problem
Dear Mr. Patterson:
Enclosed for your information are copies of the
depositions of Thor C. Tollefson and Donald
Johnson, U. S. Commissioners on the IPSFC, taken
in Seattle, Washington, in connection with this
matter.
Very truly yours,
For the Regional Solicitor
George George D. Alapart Dysart
Assistant Regional Solicitor
Enclosures
SEVALD VALD 8. FORD
September 19, 1974
MEMORANDUM FOR:
ATTENDEES
SUBJECT:
September 18, 1974, Meeting on
Northwest Fisheries and Indian
Trust Rights
1. Allocation of the Fish and Wildlife Service's Extra $690,000
Assistant Secretary Reed notified the meeting that these funds
would be split up among the Service, the Indians and the State of
Washington and denied an allegation that all those funds would be
allocated to the State alone. He confirmed that the USFWS Regional
Director had been instructed to consult with State and Indian leaders
about the allocation and invited Mr. Kinley, on behalf of the Indian
Fisheries Commission, to let him know, after the coming tripartite
meeting, what the IFC's recommendations would be concerning
the final allocation.
2. BIA Support for Indian Fisheries Management
Mr. McDonald agreed to arrange for a meeting this week between
the Indian Fisheries representatives and the appropriate BIA
budget officers to discuss the allocation of the additional BIA funds
which the Congress has approved, and also to review the question
of FY 1976 recommendations.
3. Membership of the Advisory Committee to the International Pacific
Salmon Fisheries Commission
State will check to ascertain what the procedures are for getting
an additional member added to the U.S. section of the Advisory
Committee, i.e. an Indian representative.
FORD LIBRARY is Q7VW
- 2 -
4. The 1975 Fishing Season
Mr. Kinley assured the meeting that he and his colleagues have
drafted and will present, at the meeting with the U.S. Commissioners
on September 28, specific proposed Commission regulations for
the 1975 season. He described them as meeting what seemed to be
the agreed objective: providing general flexibility for the responsible
authorities on the U.S. side staying in conformity with the International
Convention, to go ahead and make Internal U.S. arrangements which
will, in turn, enable compliance with the Boldt decision. Mr. Kinley
agreed to circulate copies of his proposed regulations to the principal
attendees at the meeting.
5. The Anadromous Fish Act
In answer to an inquiry, the NOAA representative indicated that the
Act does permit direct grants to federally recognized Indian groups
providing that the latter's proposals meet the statutory program
requirements. A review will be made of this eligibility and any
proposals submitted, especially for FY 1976. Mr. Patterson confirmed
that it was government policy to have federally recognised tribal
governments be direct recipients of domestic assistance programs,
and not force such tribal governments to receive this federal assistance
through State governments. This is evidenced in a number of recent
or pending legislative actions.
6. List of Questions
At the conclusion of the meeting, the Indian representatives
made available a list of questions which had been prepared earlier
but not circulated; it was agreed that they would be circulated, attached
here, for the attention of the attendees.
Bradley H. Patterson, Jr.
LIST OF ATTENDEES
September 18, 1974
Northwest Fisheries and Indian Trust
Rights
NAME
AGENCY
PHONE
Brad Patterson
W.H.
456-2657
Nat Reed
Interior
343-4416
Lee Talbot
CEQ
382-1254
Guy R. McMinds
NWIFC
(206) 276-4471
Donald Dworsky
OMB
395-4993
Ted Perry
FWS
343-4767
Mike Spear
FWS
343-4767
Michele Metrinko
Interior
343-4344
F. L. Kinley
NWIFC
(206) 276-4471
Edward S. Lazowska
Justice
739-2736
Bruce C. Rashhow
Justice
739-2779
John H. Dunnigan
NOAA
(206) 442-4140
James W. Brennan
NOAA
967-3043
Hubert A. Becker
Solicitor's Office
343-9331
Sam St. Arnold
BLA
343-9468
Don McDonald
BIA
343-5704
Howard Borgstrom
OMB
395-4993
William L. Sullivan, Jr.
State
632-2335
- 2 -
A1 Burt
State
632-1727
Marshall M. Cutsforth
BIA
258-2651
Charles Peterson
NWIFC
645-2411 (206)
Hank Adams
NWIFC
(206) 486-1793
Al Powers
OMB
395-4993
GLEASE FORD VIERABLE
September 19, 1974
MEMORANDUM FOR:
ATTENDEES
SUBJECT:
September 18, 1974, Meeting on
Northwest Fisheries and Indian
Trust Rights
1. Allocation of the Fish and Wildlife Service's Extra $690,000
Assistant Secretary Reed notified the meeting that these funds
would be split up among the Service, the Indians and the State of
Washington and denied an allegation that all those funds would be
allocated to the State alone. He confirmed that the USFWS Regional
Director had been instructed to consult with State and Indian leaders
about the allocation and invited Mr. Kinley, on behalf of the Indian
Fisheries Commission, to let him know, after the coming tripartite
meeting, what the IFC's recommendations would be concerning
the final allocation.
2. BIA Support for Indian Fisheries Management
Mr. McDonald agreed to arrange for a meeting this week between
the Indian Fisheries representatives and the appropriate BIA
budget officers to discuss the allocation of the additional BIA funds
which the Congress has approved, and also to review the question
of FY 1976 recommendations.
3. Membership of the Advisory Committee to the International Pacific
Salmon Fisheries Commission
State will check to ascertain what the procedures are for getting
an additional member added to the U.S. section of the Advisory
Committee, i.e. an Indian representative.
FORD LIBRARY is 078838
- 2 -
4. The 1975 Fishing Season
Mr. Kinley assured the meeting that he and his colleagues have
drafted and will present, at the meeting with the U.S. Commissioners
on September 28, specific proposed Commission regulations for
the 1975 season. He described them as meeting what seemed to be
the agreed objective: providing general flexibility for the responsible
authorities on the U.S. side staying in conformity with the International
Convention, to go ahead and make internal U.S. arrangements which
will, in turn, enable compliance with the Boldt decision. Mr. Kinley
agreed to circulate copies of his proposed regulations to the principal
attendees at the meeting.
5. The Anadromous Fish Act
In answer to an inquiry, the NOAA representative indicated that the
Act does permit direct grants to federally recognized Indian groups
providing that the latter's proposals meet the statutory program
requirements. A review will be made of this eligibility and any
proposals submitted, especially for FY 1976. Mr. Patterson confirmed
that it was government policy to have federally recognized tribal
governments be direct recipients of domestic assistance programs,
and not force such tribal governments to receive this federal assistance
through State governments. This is evidenced in a number of recent
or pending legislative actions.
6. List of Questions
At the conclusion of the meeting, the Indian representatives
made available a list of questions which had been prepared earlier
but not circulated; it was agreed that they would be circulated, attached
here, for the attention of the attendees.
Bradley H. Patterson, Jr.
Northwest Salmon Fisheries
1400
September 18
74
Bradley H. Patterson, Jr.
White House
Larry Aschenbrenner for Reed Chambers
James Brennan for Robert Schoning (Commerce)
Alanson Burt State Department (replaced Steward Blow)
Jack Dunnegan for Robert Schoning
Ed Lazowska for Wally Johnson
Dan McDonald for Morris Thompson
Michael Metrinko
L. Edward Perry for Nat Reed
Al Powers for Frank Zarb
Bruce Raskhow for Wally Johnson
Nathaniel Reed
Department of the Interior (can only stay for a short time)
Sam St. Arnold for Morris Thompson (in Seneca's Office)
Mike Spear for Nat Reed and Lyn Greenwealt)
Eugene Suarez for Morris Thompson
Hank Adams
Guy McMinds
William Rodgers
Forest Kinnley
Charlie Peterson
Linda Hagge
OEOB
182
2657
445
September 18, 1974
additions:
Marshall Cutsforth
Lee Talbot
Rm
445
Oed M Fri
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
OK BHP
343-11111
OK Larry aschent
No LG
183-9401
4 343- 6967
Betty Reed No 2 PM Will Hun 9/18
Whitaker 183-4423
ames
MR.
Nat Reed 183-4417 mike Edward spear. Perry 2403
No (requerelt
Commerce Omos Enos
forging Shirloy Schoning No
1
343-4007. Hold Blatt
al Powers
343-7981
Joan Zarb No 6186
Ed Lazowska
187
Bruce
Morial Hompson OK 183-4174 7678
Johnson
739-2701
Raskhow
State ?
Steward 632-127 Blow's
655-4000
Bust
many ann
alanson
Northwest Salmon Fisheries
Sam St.Arnold (Seneca) BIA
/ Hank adams
2 Foresth Kirtley
EPH
4 Chartie Peterson
3 Muy Mc Minds
5 William Rodgers
James 967-3043 Brennan Legal office
Jack Seattle Dunnegan Legal
Dave Childs
The Prink
Michael Metrinko 2251575
Dan Mc Donald
Tribal Res. Dev.
Eugene Sugarez
Law
NAME
AGENCY
3N2818
OR
ADDRESS
Brad Patterson
w.H
456-2057
Nal Red
Interior
343-4416
LEE TALBOT
CEQ
382-1254
GUY R me Minds
NWIFC
206 276-4471
DONALD DWORSKY
OMB
395-4993
Ted Perry
Fws
MIKE SPEAR
FWS
343-4767
MicheleMetrintro Interior 343-4344
B. I, Kinley
Limi 19ea.
Edward S. Lazowsha
Dept Justice
739-2736
Bruce C. Narhkow
Justice
739-2779
JOHN H. DUNNIGAN NOAA (206) 442 - 4140
James #Breman
NOAA
967 967 3043 3043
Hubert D. Becker
Salicitor office
343-9331
Whyour S.St.Cunde
B/A
343-9468
Nonthillard
B/A
343-5704
Howard Borgs from
OMB
395-4993
William L. Sullivan, h State
632-2335
AI Burt Dept. of state
#
632-1727
Marshall M. Cutsforth BIA
258-2651
Crerett, Washington
Charles Peterson Arr. 645-2411
Hank Adams- - Coord. - nul7c 206 456-1793
Al Power
OMB
395-4993
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 19, 1974
MEMORANDUM FOR:
ATTENDEES
SUBJECT:
September 18, 1974, Meeting on
Northwest Fisheries and Indian
Trust Rights
1. Allocation of the Fish and Wildlife Service's Extra $690,000
Assistant Secretary Reed notified the meeting that these funds
would be split up among the Service, the Indians and the State of
Washington and denied an allegation that all those funds would be
allocated to the State alone. He confirmed that the USFWS Regional
Director had been instructed to consult with State and Indian leaders
about the allocation and invited Mr. Kinley, on behalf of the Indian
Fisheries Commission, to let him know, after the coming tripartite
meeting, what the IFC's recommendations would be concerning
the final allocation.
2. BIA Support for Indian Fisheries Management
Mr. McDonald agreed to arrange for a meeting this week between
the Indian Fisheries representatives and the appropriate BIA
budget officers to discuss the allocation of the additional BIA funds
which the Congress has approved, and also to review the question
of FY 1976 recommendations.
3. Membership of the Advisory Committee to the International Pacific
Salmon Fisheries Commission
State will check to ascertain what the procedures are for getting
an additional member added to the U.S. section of the Advisory
Committee, i.e. an Indian representative.
GERALD FORD VIBRARY
- 2 -
4. The 1975 Fishing Season
Mr. Kinley assured the meeting that he and his colleagues have
drafted and will present, at the meeting with the U.S. Commissioners
on September 28, specific proposed Commission regulations for
the 1975 season. He described them as meeting what seemed to be
the agreed objective: providing general flexibility for the responsible
authorities on the U.S. side, staying in conformity with the International
Convention, to go ahead and make internal U.S. arrangements which
will, in turn, enable compliance with the Boldt decision. Mr. Kinley
agreed to circulate copies of his proposed regulations to the principal
attendees at the meeting.
5. The Anadromous Fish Act
In answer to an inquiry, the NOAA representative indicated that the
Act does permit direct grants to federally recognized Indian groups
providing that the latter's proposals meet the statutory program
requirements. A review will be made of this eligibility and any
proposals submitted, especially for FY 1976. Mr. Patterson confirmed
that it was government policy to have federally recognized tribal
governments be direct recipients of domestic assistance programs,
and not force such tribal governments to receive this federal assistance
through State governments. This is evidenced in a number of recent
or pending legislative actions.
6. List of Questions
At the conclusion of the meeting, the Indian representatives
made available a list of questions which had been prepared earlier
but not circulated; it was agreed attached
that they would be circulated,
here, for the attention of the attendees.
Bradley
H.
Patterson,
Jr.
GENALD ? XXXXXXX FORD
NORTHWEST INDIAN FISHERIES COMMISSION (NWIFC)
Washington, D.C. - September 18 - 20, 1974.
Purposes of Discussions with Federal Officials:
The several Treaty Councils and Tribes under the Treaties of
Quinault, Makah, Medicine Creek, Point No Point, and Point Elliott have
collectively charged the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission with the
responsibility of evaluating and acting upon certain emergent issues of
critical importance to Indian people of the Pacific Northwest relating
to tribal treaty rights fishing and valued fish resources.
Issues and questions which require discussion, clarification,
direction, resolution, or formulation of commitments, include:
1. What shall be the extent and nature of federal commit-
ments for assistance to Indian Tribes and for implementing
the Boldt Decision on treaty Indian rights?
2. What are the existing and future Indian tribal needs ----
for federal budgetary support and for scientific professional
expertise and technical assistance -- for carrying out the
Tribes' management responsibilities for fish resources?
3. What are the present tribal needs for biological *services
and management assistances from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service and its Northwest Fisheries Services Program (head-
quartered at Tumwater, Washington), and how long will their
program services be needed by the Tribes?
4. Why was there a dramatic congressional cutback in Boldt
Implementation Funds for BIA and Indian Tribes as requested
by the (Nixon) Administration, and what will happen to those
funds ($690,000) specifically requested for the USF&WS North-
west Fisheries Program's continued services to Washington and
Oregon Indian Tribes, and appropriated by the Congress?
5. Has a covert policy become operational in the Interior
Department, with other Administration and Congressional support,
to defeat the effects of the Boldt Decision, to deny Indian
Tribes and people the full benefit of their rights under the
treaties, and to prevent the Tribes' positive assumption of
major management responsibilities or control over their separate
and inter-related fish resources?
6. What federal funding support is actually needed and justified
for Washington State fish and game agencies for implementation of
the Boldt Decision; for rehabilitation and development of fish
resources; and for their own management responsibilities? Can
needed funds for services and assistances to Indian tribes, as
now available in limited measure, justifiably be diverted to the
undefined and unqualified requests of these State agencies? If
diverted away from tribal programming needs, what will be the
impact upon the tribal rights and affected fish resources?
7. What is the import of the treaty fishing rights to the
Indian people of the Pacific Northwest? The Boldt Decision
ruled that major readjustments in the management and resource
allocation systems, which had operated with near-total disre-
gard of the Indian treaty rights, are necessary. How can the
required readjustments and reallocations best be achieved?
8. What standing should the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commis-
sion have in relationships to federal, state, and international
agencies and decision-making bodies; and what role is expected
of the NWIFC by the Indian Tribes and Treaty Councils which have
formed and organized it?
9. What considerations argue against the State of Washington's
exercise of absolute control and primary management responsi-
bility for all off-reservation Indian fish resources and fishing
activities? What is the State's record in the management of
salmon and steelhead resources, and what have the State agencies
done with the public funding resources previously available to
them for management and maintenance of fish resources?
10. What will be the impact upon the Indian tribes and communities
if the operative designs to defeat the Boldt Decision and to again
deny Indian people the benefit of their treaty resource and tribal
governmental rights are successful?
FOCUS OF TRIBAL AND NWIFC CONCERNS:
Indian concerns and questions regarding future federal actions,
which may curtail needed assistances in tribal fish management programs --
and which may be harmful to Indian rights and resources, or inimical to our
known interests -- have been heightened by several recent actions and state-
ments of Interior Department officials.
After the Boldt Decisions was first issued, Indian people were
encouraged by the immediate steps being taken by federal officials in the
Administration and Interior Department to implement its requirements and
effects. In particular, the moves to meet a post-trial federal commitment
to provide necessary scientific and biological assistances for tribal fish
management and self-regulation programs were heartening.
Subsequent actions by the Interior Secretary and Regional Office
of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (Technical Assistance) appearred to
transfer priority in support and assistance to Washington State agencies.
Departmental accounts of a meeting between Secretary Morton and State offi-
cials clearly indicated that the Interior Department was prepared to assume
a posture of opposition to the strengthened Indian rights and the tribal or
inter-tribal role in the management of fish resources./1 The Secretary's
agreement with State game and fish departmental directors that there should
be no Indian role in the management of fish resources, and no additional
federal commitments to Indian salmon or steelhead hatcheries, were parti-
cularly distressing. The Secretary's characterization of the unfairness of
the Boldt Decision to non-Indians has operated against its implementation.
- 2 -
LIST OF ATTENDEES
September 18, 1974
Northwest Fisheries and Indian Trust
Rights
NAME
AGENCY
PHONE
Brad Patterson
W.H.
456-2657
Nat Reed
2
Interior
343-4416
Lee Talbot
CEQ
382-1254
Guy R. McMinds
NWIFC
(206) 276-4471
Donald Dworsky
OMB
395-4993
Ted Perry
FWS
343-4767
Mike Spear
FWS
343-4767
Michele Metrinko
Interior
343-4344
-
F. L. Kinley
NWIFC
(206) 276-4471
Edward S. Lazowska
Justice
739-2736
Bruce C. Raskhow
Justice
739-2779
John H. Dunnigan
NOAA
(206) 442-4140
James W. Brennan
NOAA
967-3043
Hubert A. Becker
+
Solicitor's Office
343-9331
Sam St. Arnold
BIA
343-9468
Don McDonald
+
BIA
343-5704
Howard Borgstrom
OMB
395-4993
FORD LIBRARY & GERALD
William L. Sullivan, Jr.
-
State
632-2335
- 2 -
Al Burt
State
632-1727
Marshall M. Cutsforth
BIA
258-2651
Charles Peterson
NWIFC
645-2411 (206)
Hank Adams
NWIF C
(206) 486-1793
Al Powers
OMB
395-4993