    [Senate Hearing 108-563]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 108-563

           NATIVE AMERICAN FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES MANAGEMENT ACT

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                          COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                          ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                       ON

                                    S. 2301

      TO IMPROVE THE MANAGEMENT OF INDIAN FISH AND WILDLIFE AND GATHERING
                                   RESOURCES

                                   __________

                                 APRIL 29, 2004
                                 WASHINGTON, DC

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    93-499                      WASHINGTON : DC
    ____________________________________________________________________________
    For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
    Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov  Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
    Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001

                          COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS

                  BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado, Chairman

                    DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Vice Chairman

    JOHN McCAIN, Arizona,                KENT CONRAD, North Dakota
    PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico         HARRY REID, Nevada
    CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming                DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
    ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah                 BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
    JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma            TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
    GORDON SMITH, Oregon                 MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
    LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska

             Paul Moorehead, Majority Staff Director/Chief Counsel

            Patricia M. Zell, Minority Staff Director/Chief Counsel

                                      (ii)

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    S. 2301, text of.................................................     3
    Statements:
        Carlson, Ervin, president, Inter-Tribal Bison Cooperative....    88
        Dubray, Fred, Inter-Tribal Bison Cooperative, Rapid City, SD.    88
        Frank, Jr., Billy, chairman, Northwest Indian Fisheries
          Commission.................................................    65
        Inouye, Hon. Daniel K., U.S. Senator from Hawaii, vice
          chairman, Committee on Indian Affairs......................     1
        Jackson, Gordon, director, Business and Sustainable
          Development, Central Council Tlingit and Haida Tribes of
          Alaska.....................................................    85
        Mayo, Randy, first chief, Stevens Village, AK................    82
        Myers, Sonny, executive director, 1854 Authority.............    73
        New Breast, Ira, executive director, Native American Fish and
          Wildlife Society...........................................    78
        Patt, Jr., Olney, chairman, Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish
          Commission.................................................    67
        Smith, Hon. Gordon, U.S. Senator from Oregon.................    71
        Schwalenberg, Dewey, natural resource/environmental program
          director, Stevens Village, AK..............................    82
        Zorn, James, attorney-policy analyst, Great Lakes Indian Fish
          and Wildlife Commission....................................    75

                                    Appendix

    Prepared statements:
        Carlson, Ervin...............................................    95
        Frank, Jr., Billy............................................   103
        Jackson, Gordon..............................................   108
        Mayo, Randy..................................................    98
        Myers, Sonny.................................................   113
        New Breast, Ira..............................................    98
        Patt, Jr., Olney.............................................   100
        Smith, Hon. Gordon, U.S. Senator from Oregon.................    95
        Schwalenberg, Dewey (with attachment)........................   118
        Zorn, James..................................................   142

           NATIVE AMERICAN FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACT

                                  ----------

                           WEDNESDAY, APRIL 29, 2004

                                           U.S. Senate,
                                   Committee on Indian Affairs,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in room
    485, Senate Russell Building, Hon. Daniel K. Inouye (vice
    chairman of the committee) presiding.
        Present: Senators Inouye and Smith.

     STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. INOUYE, U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII,
               VICE CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS

        Senator Inouye. The Senate Committee on Indian Affairs
    meets this morning to receive testimony on S. 2301, a
    discussion draft bill that was introduced on April 7, 2004 to
    provide for support for the activities of tribal governments in
    managing fish and wildlife and gathering resources.
        The Native American Fish and Wildlife Resources Management
    Act of 2004 was developed by Indian tribes and the tribal
    organizations they charter to provide for the prudent
    management of fish and wildlife resources, as well as by Alaska
    Native governments and organizations. The act builds upon the
    foundation of earlier measures, some of which have been enacted
    into law, which are designed to more specifically address the
    nature of the United States' trust responsibilities as they
    relate to the natural resources that are held in trust.
        Tribal governments are the principal stewards of the
    natural resources of tribal lands. For thousands of years
    before European contact, tribes also served as the responsible
    stewards of the natural resources on millions of acres of land
    that were under their dominion and control. There were no
    shortages of resources in earlier times because the tribes
    regulated fishing and hunting and gathering in a manner that
    would assure the protection and conservation of our precious
    natural resources.
        They harvested only what was necessary for their
    subsistence and for those with whom they traded. But then came
    the massive influx of those who came to settle in America. With
    their westward expansion came the clear-cutting of forests, the
    resulting erosion of land, and the introduction of chemicals to
    foster the growth of agricultural crops that began to affect
    the quality of water in the streams and rivers and even the
    ocean, and later the construction of dams to provide
    electricity.
        All of these developments have had a devastating impact on
    the fish and wildlife and the habitat that is their home and
    which Indian tribes and other concerned citizens seek to
    preserve and protect. We have been for many years now at a
    critical juncture in maintaining the health and the very
    survival of wild species. The list of species that are
    threatened or endangered continues to grow and tough economic
    decisions have to be made.
        For instance, today on the front page of the Washington
    Post we read about a new rule being proposed by the National
    Marine Fisheries Service which announces that the
    Administration will now count hatchery-bred fish when it
    decides whether stream-bred wild salmon are entitled to
    protection under the Endangered Species Act.
        The bill that is the subject of the testimony we will
    receive today was largely drafted in Indian country by those
    who have expertise in the management of fish and wildlife
    resources. It is a work in progress, but I think it is
    important to note that this bill is not intended to, nor will
    it affect either an expansion or diminishment of tribal rights.
    What it is designed to do is provide support for what tribal
    governments are doing every day with increasingly limited
    resources to protect fish and wildlife, not only for the
    domestic consumption and subsistence uses of its citizens, but
    protecting these precious resources for all of our Nation's
    citizens.
        In many areas of the country, tribal governments are
    working with Federal agencies and State governments to develop
    and implement management schemes that will preserve fish and
    wildlife resources and foster the healthy growth of fish and
    wildlife populations. Each government has the responsibility of
    managing fish and wildlife resources within their respective
    jurisdictions, but working together Federal agencies and State
    and tribal governments are far better equipped to provide
    protections for fish and wildlife that do not honor
    jurisdictional boundaries, as for instance when the various
    species of salmon return from the ocean to their streams of
    origin to spawn.
        So we must all work together, and tribal governments must
    have the resources to carry on their traditions of responsible
    stewardship.
        [Text of S. 2301 follows:]

        Senator Inouye. Now, may I call upon our first panel. The
    first panel consists of the chairman of the Northwest Indian
    Fisheries Commission of Olympia, Washington, Billy Frank, Jr.;
    the chairman of the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission
    of Portland, OR, Olney Patt, Jr.; and the chairman of the
    Southwest Tribal Fisheries Commission of Lakeside, AZ, Mr.
    Arthur ``Butch'' Blazer.
        May I first call upon Chairman Frank.

       STATEMENT OF BILLY FRANK, Jr., CHAIRMAN, NORTHWEST INDIAN
                          FISHERIES COMMISSION

        Mr. Frank. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I am Billy Frank,
    chairman of the Northwest Indian Fish Commission for the last
    25 years. It is an honor to be here today with members of the
    committee, as well as our chairman.
        On behalf of our 20 tribes of the Northwest Indian Fish
    Commission we are pleased to appear before the Senate Committee
    on Indian Affairs to provide supportive comments on the Native
    American Fish and Wildlife Management Act.
        Today, we will provide some general comments with the
    intention of providing more specific comments pertinent to S.
    2301 over the coming weeks. We sincerely thank you and your
    staff for your extensive investment of time and energy in this
    legislation. We commend you.
        Tribes have managed fish and wildlife resources for
    thousands of years. Our treaties are now 150 years old in the
    Northwest. In United States v. Washington, one of our cases
    that was brought by the United States v. Washington in 1974 is
    now 30 years old. Out of that case, confirmed by the United
    States Supreme Court in 1979, came many legal principles as
    other principles of our tribes.
        One was the co-management of our tribes, that we use to set
    regulations and work with all of our tribes. Out of that came
    the Northwest Indian Fish Commission, an arm of all the tribes,
    to coordinate all of our fishery issues, internationally and
    200 miles out in the ocean. So we are managers.
        We need funding. We need Congress to come forward with
    legislation to give us funding for what we do as managers. We
    need training and education. We need legal support, technical
    and policy-level coordination support, and public opinion
    support.
        Tribes are good fish and wildlife managers. They always
    have been. We are not asking for anything we are not already
    supposed to have--to fish, hunt, gather and manage. It should
    not scare anyone. We are not trying to take over Federal lands
    or anything else. We are looking for ways to work together for
    common benefits.
        We gather berries from Canada clear down into Mexico on the
    Cascade Range, that runs south from Canada. That is where we
    have our ceremonies--up in the mountains on Federal lands. The
    range of the mountains are all Federal lands. It is protected
    by our Federal Government. But on that mountain they have signs
    that these areas are set aside for treaty Indian rights, for
    camping, for ceremonies. They have parks. They have real nice
    places for us to camp and have fires and gather our medicines,
    as well as our berries.
        It is a place for Indian people to come and drive around
    and think back of the memories of the many times that they have
    camped in that mountain. My brother and I drive there at least
    five or six times a year and just drive through the roads and
    think of all the memories of our past, of our grandmas and
    grandpas, and our children that played and enjoyed that
    mountain.
        We have memoranda of understandings; we have agreements
    with the Federal agencies that protect that land--for not only
    us, but for everyone, all the public; not only for the 20
    tribes that I represent--it goes clean into Oregon and the
    Yakimas on the other side of the mountain. All of our people
    enjoy that range of mountain that is Federal lands. This bill
    would enhance all of that that I am talking about.
        We need protection. We need protection. I talked about the
    Federal funding. We are looking out into the next 100 or 200
    years of protection and managing the resource in our country,
    in our own backyards. We have agreements with the big business
    of the State of Washington. We have agreements with the timber
    industry on timber fish and wildlife. We have agreements with
    in-stream flows, with the utilities on our rivers. We have
    hundreds and hundreds of rivers and streams. We have agreements
    with the agriculture people, as well as a lot of our people
    that live on our watersheds.
        The Indian tribes are on those watersheds 24 hours a day.
    We are there managing 24 hours a day. We live there. We have
    coalitions of all people of the State of Washington. We have
    coalitions of environmentalists. We have coalitions of
    agriculture people, farmers, and timber people. We have
    shellfish agreements out into the Puget Sound and along the
    Pacific Coast. We are working with the Federal agencies as
    partners, as well as the State of Washington and all their
    agencies.
        So we welcome and support this bill today, S. 2301. As you
    said, it is working. In order for us all to work together and
    make things happen, we have to sit down and try to get creative
    in the language that we do not hurt anybody. We have to get
    creative as thinkers and put thought into what we are talking
    about; thought into talking for the fish; talking for the
    animals; talking for the resource. How do we all talk and
    protect them at the same time and find a balance out there,
    with all the people that are moving into our country?
        We will work with the local government, the planners, and
    all. We have big water problems throughout our country and we
    have to address these very important things. Our tribes stand
    ready to do that, sir.
        We want to thank you and the committee, especially you,
    Senator, for being our person that always cares about Indian
    treaties and Indian rights and our people.
        Thank you.
        [Prepared statement of Mr. Frank appears in appendix.]
        Senator Inouye. I thank you very much, Chairman Frank.
        May I call upon Chairman Patt.

     STATEMENT OF OLNEY PATT, Jr., CHAIRMAN, COLUMBIA RIVER INTER-
                         TRIBAL FISH COMMISSION

        Mr. Patt. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, on behalf
    of the Columbia River treaty tribes I would like to thank you
    for this opportunity to provide testimony on the Native
    American Fish and Wildlife Resource Management Act of 2004.
        My name is Olney Patt, Jr. and I am the executive director
    of the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, a
    Commission formed by resolution of the Nez Perce Tribe, the
    Confederated Tribes of Umatilla Indian Reservation, the
    Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon,
    and the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakima Nation, for
    the purpose of coordinating fishery management policy and
    providing technical expertise essential for the protection of
    the tribes' treaty-protected fish resources.
        Both independently and through their Commission process,
    the Columbia River treaty tribes have worked cooperatively and
    with some success with the states and Federal agencies, as well
    as with private landowners to restore populations of the shared
    salmon resource. The Columbia River treaty tribes see this bill
    as an opportunity to provide a framework for tribes to deal
    with specific on-reservation resource management issues, as
    well as to provide a national framework that can allow tribes,
    states and the Federal Government to also successfully address
    regional management issues of shared natural resources.
        I will focus on a couple of key elements of this bill in my
    testimony today, and I will supplement the record with
    additional written testimony within a few weeks.
        Since 1977, our Commission has contracted with the BIA
    under the Self-Determination Act, Public Law 93-638, to provide
    technical expertise essential for the protection of the tribes'
    treaty-protected fish resources. What we have learned during
    this time is that through better regional coordination and
    cooperation, we can spend more time working with state and
    Federal land and water managers on developing shared resource
    management strategies and less time in court.
        Since the tribes formed the Commission, we have seen the
    development and implementation of a cooperative harvest
    management plan for the Columbia River. In the late 1960's and
    through the 1970's, the tribes spent much time in court
    debating how the tribes and States should share the
    conservation burden of the shared salmon resource. By the late
    1980's, the tribes and States had come up with an agreement on
    a plan for co-management of this resource. This plan, though
    currently under revision, has largely replaced the annual
    litigation over the conservation and harvest management of the
    shared salmon resource that originates in the Columbia River.
        In the early 1980's, we witnessed a dangerous coast-wise
    decline in Chinook salmon stocks from Southeast Alaska through
    British Columbia and throughout the Pacific Northwest. The need
    to deal with this conservation crisis helped to push the United
    States and Canada to reach an agreement on the Pacific Salmon
    Treaty of 1985. Under the treaty, there is now a management
    structure through which the parties can share technical
    information and develop strategies to deal with the management
    problems concerning the shared salmon resource.
        The Columbia River treaty tribes, along with the Western
    Washington treaty fishing tribes were significant participants
    in the negotiation of that treaty and continue to play a
    significant role in its implementation.
        Each of the examples I have outlined deal with complex
    multi-jurisdictional management issues. This bill by
    specifically allowing tribes to opt in to the resource
    inventory and planning process recognizes the needs of the
    individual tribes within regions and across the continent. This
    bill does not force any tribe to undertake the resource
    inventory and management planning process provided in this
    bill.
        Undertaking a resource inventory and survey could only
    occur at the request of the tribe. The development of the
    resource management plan would then follow at a pace set by
    each individual tribe. Nor would this bill require any tribe to
    abandon a current management plan, co-management agreements, or
    any other working resource management plan. It does offer the
    promise of a structure and the resources that can be utilized
    by the tribes at their option in developing new plans or in
    revising old management plans.
        I would like to note one important element in this bill.
    Section 202 of the bill provides a framework to increase the
    educational opportunities for tribal members to gain the
    knowledge and training necessary to manage tribal resources. It
    also provides an opportunity for tribes to coordinate and
    cooperate with other tribes, with universities and others as
    appropriate on technical and scientific issues associated with
    resource management.
        We see great promise in the development of tribal
    cooperative research units at universities across the country.
    Within the Columbia River Basin, the Commission, working with
    its members tribes, identified a critical regional need for
    additional facilities to handle genetics work associated with
    regional management restoration activities.
        On behalf of its member tribes, the Commission entered into
    a memorandum of agreement with the University of Idaho to cite
    these facilities at the University's aquaculture research
    facility. Building upon that agreement and acknowledging the
    desire of other tribes in the basin to participate in the
    opportunities offered by our arrangement with the University,
    we have worked with the University to outline a memorandum to
    establish a cooperative research unit that other tribes can
    join as well.
        The formation of that tribal cooperative research unit at
    the University of Idaho provides several benefits. It allows
    the tribes to have their own staff driving the research agenda
    and working on resource issues of importance to the tribe. It
    offers tribal staff the opportunity to reach out to the non-
    tribal community through teaching assignments at the
    University. It provides a place for tribal members attending
    the University to take on undergraduate or graduate degree
    research work.
        All of this would be accomplished in a cooperative,
    coordinated research forum that could include other state or
    Federal researchers. I would note that it is important that we
    ensure that the opportunities laid out for tribal students in
    this section of the bill, especially as to the development of
    the cooperative research unit system, are integrated with the
    opportunities and work of the Indian college system.
        For the reasons I have laid out in my testimony today, the
    Columbia River treaty tribes support the general concepts and
    opportunities provided in the language of the Native American
    Fish and Wildlife Resource Management Act of 2004. We would
    welcome the opportunity to work with you, other members of the
    committee, and with your staff to fine-tune the bill to ensure
    that it meets the needs of all the tribes within the United
    States and to ensure its passage here in Congress.
        Thank you.
        [Prepared statement of Mr. Patt appears in appendix.]
        Senator Inouye. I thank you very much, Chairman Patt.
        Chairman Frank and Chairman Patt, both of you have very
    eloquently described the successes that your commissions have
    had in developing and establishing relationships with the
    Federal Government and the State and county governments. Does
    this measure do that also, to enhance and encourage tribal
    commissions or tribal governments to establish these
    relationships?
        Chairman Frank.
        Mr. Frank. Yes; it does. We see this bill as a very
    important step for the U.S. Congress to assure us that we will
    be managers of the resource and enhance our ability to manage
    just like the States do. We are all part of it and we work
    together to make that happen. We have so many agreements in the
    last 30 years that I talk about of co-management. This bill
    will enhance all of the agreements that we have put together.
        Senator Inouye. Chairman Patt.
        Mr. Patt. Yes; I believe so. The tribes have been major
    parties to all of the decisionmaking processes in the
    Northwest. In many cases, we find that we have to reestablish
    our place at the table with each new process. This bill carves
    out a place for the tribes to be at that table at all times.
        We have been major parties, as I pointed out, to the
    Pacific Salmon Treaty, United States v. Oregon, the major
    management plan for the Columbia River Basin and so forth.
        Senator Inouye. So this bill, if passed, would give you a
    foundation of laws that would protect these relationships?
        Mr. Patt. Yes.
        Mr. Frank. Yes.
        Senator Inouye. Do you believe that without tribal
    involvement or tribal commission involvement in the management
    of resources, the overall health of the resources will suffer?
    Is this something that just the Federal Government can do?
        Mr. Patt. No; I believe because of the nature of the
    Federal Government personnel in the region, it is often
    necessary to reeducate new people who are coming in, say, for
    instance in the Fish and Wildlife Service, NOAA and all of the
    various Government agencies we work with; the Forest Service,
    BLM, as to treaty rights and to educate them on existing
    agreements. Often when these Federal officials are well
    educated on the tribes' role in the regional management
    process, they are reassigned. So this is kind of an ongoing
    process.
        Senator Inouye. Chairman Frank, this measure calls for
    programs such as seafood marketing programs. Why do you think
    that these programs would provide assistance of value to
    tribes?
        Mr. Frank. I think that it will give us an opportunity to
    put our marketing schemes forward with the Federal Government.
    Marketing right now with Indian tribes in the Northwest and our
    fishery is at about the lowest level that I can think of right
    now. No one wants to buy our salmon. There is so much salmon
    out there now. They call it Atlantic salmon. They are penned
    salmon. We Indian tribes in the Northwest, we are catching
    Pacific salmon. They are wild. So we do not have a market for
    that. This will give us an opportunity to expand our market
    into the Federal system and start supplying, maybe working with
    the Army or whoever it might be. It is a great opportunity for
    us.
        Senator Inouye. In my opening statement, I referred to an
    article that appeared in the Washington Post about the counting
    of salmon by using the hatchery-bred salmon as part of the
    count. What do you think about that?
        Mr. Patt. We have not had a chance to look at the full
    proposal of the Federal Government. I have only just read the
    article myself. What it represents to us is maybe another
    changing of the rules. We have been dealing with NOAA Fisheries
    and the Fish and Wildlife Service extensively on different
    listed species, from bull trout to salmon and steelhead stocks.
    It seems to me that this is kind of an all-or-nothing approach.
    We have struggled with NOAA Fisheries and the Fish and Wildlife
    Service in our efforts to restore salmon, using appropriate
    stocks and the wise use of artificial production. We have been
    hamstrung at every turn by the scientific certainty that they
    are demanding, such as the hatchery genetic management plans
    that are necessary in order for us to implement any artificial
    production measure.
        This seems to turn that whole rule clear around to where
    there is going to be no distinction between wild and hatchery-
    reared fish. So there are many, many facets of this, one of
    which is a bill by Norm Dicks to mark all hatchery-bred fish at
    federally funded hatcheries. If those are going to be part of
    the listed species, there is going to be some considerable
    discussion about that.
        Mr. Frank. Senator.
        Senator Inouye. Chairman Frank.
        Mr. Frank. If I could comment. They have a new rule that
    they are trying to put together. They have to be very careful
    what they are doing. I mean very careful because the wild
    salmon in the Pacific Northwest are still wild. If the rule
    says everything is going to be hatchery, then there will not be
    any in-stream flows; there will not be any timber, fish and
    wildlife agreements in the Northwest to grow trees and have
    shade along the streams and the temperature of the water and
    the gravel in the streams; debris in the stream, logjams.
        They have to be very careful what direction they are going
    when they talk about wild salmon and artificial salmon. This is
    very dangerous ground. It better be well thought out when they
    do something like that, because we have a lot of agreements in
    the Northwest with our neighbors, and working together and
    trying to find a balance on wild and artificial. We have
    hatchery reform that has been taking place in our country. It
    is very serious. The Federal Government is involved in that,
    NOAA, all of us, the State of Washington and all of our tribes.
        So we feel that we are going forward. We are taking steps
    to make the hatcheries reform to wild and how they can work
    together in our country.
        Senator Inouye. In other words, do you believe that if this
    new rule is put into effect without consultation with tribal
    governments and commissions, it may place the wild salmon in
    jeopardy?
        Mr. Patt. As I said, I have not had a chance to look at it,
    but yes, I believe so. I believe just as Mr. Frank has stated,
    that it will probably loosen up rules. Right now we have a
    major issue in the Columbia Basin on summer spill. I think this
    may be geared toward that as the NOAA Fisheries and the
    Bonneville Power Administration has canceled a couple of
    meetings with us in the last two weeks. Those meetings were
    intended to bring this proposal to us on summer spill. I
    suppose this would be a way around that.
        Senator Inouye. May I request that both your commissions
    look into this matter and share with us your thoughts on this?
        Mr. Patt. Yes.
        Mr. Frank. Yes; we will, absolutely.
        Senator Inouye. Senator Smith.

        STATEMENT OF HON. GORDON SMITH, U.S. SENATOR FROM OREGON

        Senator Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to
    be with you today and express my support for the Native
    American Fish and Wildlife Resources Management Act. I have a
    longer opening statement. In the interest of time, I will put
    it in the record.
        [Prepared statement of Senator Smith appears in appendix.]
        Senator Smith. I believe that what underpins this act is
    the natural stewardship Native Americans feel to the
    environment. Their actions are borne out by a millennia of
    history in managing their lands and their resources. I think no
    matter what the law is, their conduct will be above and beyond
    that law because that is part of their culture and their
    history that is unchangeable.
        I would--as one familiar with many of the issues Mr. Frank
    and Mr. Patt are discussing here--like to welcome them both as
    Northwesterners. Mr. Patt is a neighbor in Warm Springs, OR. I
    would express at least my view that in terms of hatchery fish,
    the management of hatcheries needs to be done very carefully
    and to the highest of standards. If done so, it can be done in
    a way that is consistent with preserving wild fish.
        It is my understanding that the highest scientific
    practices require that hatchery fish come from the eggs and the
    milt of last year's wild fish. I have not heard scientists
    describe a genetic difference between those fish 1 generation
    or 1 year removed from the other as being genetically inferior
    or somehow inappropriate to be in the ocean or in our rivers,
    but some believe that they are. I do not think it is an either/
    or equation. I think we can have both if it is done carefully
    and to high scientific standards.
        As to the whole issue of spill, I hope what is being done
    is attention being given to hard data as to what provides the
    greatest survivability, improves the survival of the fish that
    are migrating to the ocean. I have been shown data that
    suggests that spilling them actually heightens their mortality.
    More of them have gas bubble disease. They float, they get
    picked off, they are made more vulnerable than by some of the
    other means to get them through or past the dams, which at the
    same time can produce electricity.
        The only thing I am saying is if you save more fish by
    running the dams and spilling less, and you could also create
    electricity, it seems to me that reasonable people and courts
    looking at facts can experiment to find out what the truth is.
    I think everyone approaching this issue needs to have as their
    objective saving fish and producing the energy that we
    desperately need to improve economic opportunity in Washington,
    Oregon, and Idaho, where we have some of the highest
    unemployment rates in the country. That rate does not come down
    if energy production fails to go up, or if energy prices remain
    high.
        So what I am being told is there is hard data, objective
    science which suggests you can produce energy and save more
    fish. I think that is a worthy thing to do. It speaks for
    itself. No one, and myself among them, wants to stop spilling
    if it means we destroy a species. I just simply want to know
    what the facts are. I think that is what I am hearing from many
    of you, along with a word of caution. Be careful. I share that.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Inouye. Thank you very much, Senator Smith.
        Mr. Frank. Senator.
        Senator Inouye. Yes; Chairman Frank.
        Mr. Frank. I would just add to that, Senator Gordon Smith
    from Pendleton, OR. I am proud of what has taken place with all
    the tribes in Oregon. I have been down to visit them and
    working with the farmers and working with the state, as well as
    within the reservation or adjoining the reservation. You have a
    lot of water flowing now, and working together is very
    positive.
        Now, the hatcheries, I would hope that the United States
    would give very long thought about hatcheries reform or
    hatchery rule or whatever they are talking about, because we in
    the Northwest, all of us, we are talking about the next 100
    years. We are not talking about a quick fix like a rule. We are
    talking about getting the people and the public behind
    everything that we are doing as far as hatchery reform, and try
    to find that balance, as our Senator from Oregon was talking
    about, and to have time to do that.
        Now, I hope if a rule comes out that they give a lot of
    thought to hatchery and wild salmon.
        Senator Smith. Absolutely.
        Mr. Patt. Senator Smith, we also have been striving to come
    up with some good numbers on the curtailment of summer spill.
    One of the big hurdles in doing that is BPA's regional battle
    cry of $77 million to save 24 fish. That has not helped the
    effort at all. However, we are working with NOAA Fisheries and
    we think we are coming closer to some agreement on the juvenile
    mortalities.
        I was just told that our staff will be meeting with your
    staff tomorrow morning to go over some of those numbers.
        Senator Smith. We look forward to that.
        Senator Inouye. I thank you very much, Chairman Frank and
    Chairman Patt.
        Our next panel, the executive director of 1854 Authority of
    Duluth, MN, Sonny Myers; the attorney-policy analyst of the
    Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission of Odanah, WI,
    James Zorn; the executive director of the Native American Fish
    and Wildlife Society of Broomfield, CO, Ira New Breast.
        Mr. Myers.

      STATEMENT OF SONNY MYERS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 1854 AUTHORITY

        Mr. Myers. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the
    committee, my name is Sonny Myers. I am the executive director
    of the 1854 Authority. What we are is we are an intertribal
    natural resource management organization that implements the
    off-reservation hunting, fishing and gathering rights of the
    Grand Portage and the Bois Forte Bands of the Lake Superior
    Chippewa in the area that was ceded in the Treaty of 1854. So
    we are up in northeastern Minnesota.
        I would like to thank the committee for the opportunity to
    comment on this important piece of legislation. I consider it
    an honor to be here today. I would also like to make a special
    note to the committee staff who have been working very hard,
    been very active in gathering actual tribal input. It seems
    like the current draft is a direct reflection of what the
    tribes have been trying to bring forth. And also from my
    perspective, their understanding of the real-world political
    processes, how these things actually work and moving these
    things along, has been very, very helpful because I am a little
    bit new at this process.
        As everyone in this room is aware, great things have been
    happening in Indian country relating to tribes' ability to
    oversee its own members and also to oversee its own reserve
    resources; 15 years ago, I am speaking from Minnesota, at least
    from our perspective, a Band member would have been arrested
    and actually was arrested for moose hunting off the
    reservation. Now, the right was there, but now today we are
    actually at the table not only participating in the
    discussions, but providing valuable input into harvest quotas
    that are set for both the State and tribal hunters.
        Ten years ago, a bi-national effort to protect the waters
    of Lake Superior was brought forth. That meant every
    jurisdiction was at the table, except for the tribes. Actually
    now today we are not only at the table, as well as other tribal
    organizations, but in many cases tribal staff are key members
    of working committees there.
        Really, about 5 years ago, things are a little stickier in
    the fishery realm; there is a stigma attached to fish and
    Indians back home, but the concept of cooperating on a
    fisheries information gathering effort with State folks did
    happen, but it was a real grudging affair. As I speak, last
    night and tonight members of my staff will actually be out
    there working in a very cooperative, friendly manner on
    gathering that type of information.
        I just wanted to say that. You know, it has really been our
    charge or our commission to champion the tribes' rightful place
    among the stakeholders in managing the shared resources in the
    area that has been reserved in the 1854 Treaty area.
        So indeed, great things have been happening. I wanted to
    make note of that because we are very thankful for the
    foundations that have been laid and the groundwork by many of
    the people, especially out in the Northwest, and some of my
    colleagues here from Wisconsin, sort of laid the groundwork for
    our successes in Minnesota. But also as everyone in here is
    aware, there is a constant striving or a constant effort to
    erode the sovereignty that the tribes are working very hard to
    maintain.
        Hence, we think this Native American Fish and Wildlife
    Resource Management Act will hopefully be a means to take or
    move tribal fish and wildlife management to its rightful place.
        So I just have a few comments on the proposed legislation,
    why we think it is necessary and hopefully these things will be
    addressed and are addressed in the proposed legislation. We
    think it is necessary because it expressly recognizes that
    Indian tribes must have a role in managing ceded territory of
    fish and wildlife resources. Not only should the tribes be at
    the table, but as time is telling, it is actually a benefit to
    have the tribes at the table when discussing these resource
    issues.
        Statutory acknowledgment of these treaty rights is
    necessary because the rights are too often subordinated to the
    interests of others who have no treaty rights, but have strong
    political influence. Even though we are gaining ground in
    respect, very often and most often we are lumped in with other
    special interest groups when it comes to frameworks in which to
    provide comments and to be part of the process.
        Last, I just want to say that we are sensitive to the
    concerns of others, the tribes are, but we must ensure that the
    quality and the quantity of the fish, game and traditional
    plants, and the access to them, is not diminished because of
    land management practices that do not consider treaty rights. I
    wanted to quantify ``access'' to mean that is both the physical
    access of actually getting to an access, and also some of the
    methodologies. This is especially a concern for us in our lands
    which are managed by the Federal Government. The 1854 Treaty
    encompasses both a national forest and a designated wilderness
    area, so we are talking a large portion of the 1854 Treaty area
    where the Band members hunt, fish and gather is managed by the
    Federal Government.
        So last, I will just close with this legislation hopefully
    should not be construed as a replacement for what is going on,
    but really hopefully what it would do it really would enhance
    what is going on and further the cause of establishing the
    tribes' rightful place among the stakeholders in managing these
    shared resources that have been reserved.
        My ancestors had the foresight to reserve those rights and
    we are thankful for that. We are beneficiaries of some very
    explicit treaty language for ceded territories, and hopefully
    we can have the foresight to preserve those rights.
        Again, I would like to thank the committee for the work
    that has already been completed, and I really look forward to
    bringing this important legislation to fruition.
        Thank you.
        [Prepared statement of Mr. Myers appears in appendix.]
        Senator Inouye. I thank you very much, Mr. Myers.
        Mr. Zorn.

     STATEMENT OF JAMES ZORN, ATTORNEY-POLICY ANALYST, GREAT LAKES
                  INDIAN FISH AND WILDLIFE COMMISSION

        Mr. Zorn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Smith, other
    members of the committee. Again, it is a great honor to come
    before this committee and talk about this important matter. As
    you recall, last June 3 we had an oversight hearing where
    tribes and tribal organizations from around the Nation came and
    helped to present a record for this committee as to what Indian
    tribes and their agencies are doing out there to protect
    natural resources and to help tribes exercise their sovereignty
    over those resources.
        The Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission is an
    agency of 11 Chippewa tribes located in Minnesota, Wisconsin,
    and Michigan. All of those tribes have signed treaties with the
    United States whereby they ceded a large section of land in
    those areas, and in those treaties they specifically reserved
    the right to continue to hunt, fish and gather--in essence to
    continue their life-ways on the lands that were ceded.
        The tribes' rights include the right to regulate their own
    members and to play a role in the management of those natural
    resources that are subject to the rights, as well as in
    protecting the habitats and ecosystems that support the
    resources that are harvested.
        So that is our perspective here today. We offer our written
    testimony. We will let that go in the record and we will just
    offer some thoughts now orally to highlight what is in the
    testimony, and we hope that our June 3 testimony also is
    brought into this record, or at least considered.
        We are extremely grateful to the committee and the
    committee staff, as well as to the tribes from around the
    Nation and their staff, for the hard work that has gone into
    developing this bill. It is very clear that this committee
    listened very carefully to the tribes, not only on June 3, but
    about 10 or 12 years ago when a previous version of this bill
    was being kicked around and being considered. There is great
    sensitivity by this committee to the needs in Indian country
    and this bill reflects that.
        What this bill, in our view, is really about is identifying
    the Federal role to support and assist the tribes as they play
    their proper role in natural resource management particulary
    within tribal communities, where the tribal governments have
    the most important role to play, as well as with other tribes,
    perhaps with whom they share use areas like in our situation
    with the ceded territories and in the Northwest. I think we
    often forget that the term ``co-management'' also includes
    management among the tribes. This is a very important aspect
    that the bill properly recognizes.
        And, ultimately, the proper rule with other governments and
    with the larger community, beyond the tribal community, because
    these natural resources are shared by everyone. The tribes want
    to play their role in protecting the natural resources and in
    sustainable populations of natural resources for generations to
    come, not just for them, but for their neighbors.
        As I understand this bill and as I understand how it is
    drafted, the tribes are not asking for any rights or
    responsibilities that they do not already have. Each tribe has
    the rights that it has, and those rights simply are what they
    are. The bill then is really, in our view, a tool to help the
    tribes realize and achieve their rights as governments to be
    involved in natural resource management activities, both on the
    reservation and off the reservation where existing tribal
    rights and responsibilities attach.
        Senator Inouye, to use a phrase that was used many years
    ago in Wisconsin, we view this bill as Congress helping ``cast
    the light,'' so to speak, on the Federal Government's proper
    role, particularly the executive branch's proper role, in
    honoring and supporting tribal rights and management
    responsibilities both on and off the reservation, in fulfilling
    the purposes of the Self-Determination Act to get the funds and
    the responsibilities for running those programs down to the
    tribes themselves, and not to a Federal bureaucracy, and to
    ensure that wherever Federal authority is carried out, by
    whatever Federal agency, those agencies and that authority is
    carried out in a way that does not infringe upon the tribes'
    rights, and in fact honors them and helps support them.
        This really is not just about tribes. It is about the
    Nation as a whole. As we recently found out in a strategic
    planning process with the Fish and Wildlife Service's Fisheries
    Program, partners and stakeholders from around the Nation--from
    the Federal Government, State governments, non-governmental
    organizations and tribes--got together and talked about the
    crises that are facing this Nation's natural resources,
    particularly aquatic habitats. There is a call now for a
    national aquatic habitat initiative because of common problems
    faced around the country, particularly with invasive species,
    habitat loss and so on.
        In that strategic planning process, there was the
    practical, if not legal, recognition that the tribes need to be
    there; that the job cannot be done without tribes. Tribes
    control a great deal of land and resources on the reservation.
    And, they play a great role where they have ceded territory
    rights in ensuring the sustainability of resources. The
    partners uniformly recognized that tribes need to be at the
    table if this Nation is to succeed in passing on the legacy of
    natural resources that we inherited, if not a better one.
        With those background comments, we have a few particular
    comments on the bill's provisions. I will just highlight them
    briefly. First of all, we hope the bill does not result in the
    creation of a new bureaucracy within the Department of the
    Interior. We just hope that the committee assesses that. We
    understand that there is a dialog between tribes and the
    committee, and there will be a dialog with the Interior
    Department as this bill moves forward. This is just something
    we want to keep in mind--The purpose of the bill is to get the
    funds and responsibilities out to the tribes. We should be
    careful not to keep them within the Federal agencyif a tribal
    natural resources management program is created within
    Interior.
        Second, we understand there may be some prospective issues
    with the bill that involve the dilemma that Federal agencies
    face. We call it the dual mandate dilemma, where Congress
    legislates particular responsibilities for an agency, such as
    for the Forest Service with national forests, saying this is
    your job. The statute says this is what the agency must do. Yet
    there is the separate stovepipe of obligations of each agency
    with respect to the tribes' reserved treaty rights, where that
    agency must honor those rights, and must carry out its
    responsibility and authority under the other specific act in a
    way that is consistent with those rights.
        It is not a matter of taking over the Federal lands from a
    tribal perspective, especially the lands off the reservation.
    It is a matter of having the Federal agency recognize tribal
    rights, making sure those rights are implemented, and making
    sure the Federal land is managed in a way that does not
    infringe upon those rights and supports the habitats of the
    natural resources that are subject to the rights. So we do not
    think that this is a big problem and we offer our experience
    with the Forest Service and with the National Park Service over
    the last 10 to 15 years as examples of how things might work
    out.
        In terms of how the Self-Determination Act funding might
    fit in that circumstance, our agreement with the Forest
    Service, for example, is that the Forest Service will recognize
    and assist the tribes in implementing their treaty gathering
    rights. Yet when it comes time to getting positions on our
    staff to deal with the Forest Service, the Forest Service will
    say--``we do not have the funds; we are not authorized to give
    you funds.'' In fact, we were turned to the part of the Forest
    Service called State and Private Forestry to look for those
    funds. So our hope is that through this act we can then say,
    when we have our arrangements set, that the Self-Determination
    Act can help give us our infrastructure on the tribal side that
    we need to help implement that agreement.
        Second, in terms of the natural resource management
    planning and other requirements of the act, we certainly hope
    that the act is not intended to require the tribes to change
    their natural resource management traditions or methods, or to
    change or alter their existing management plans, to either
    conform to the bill's requirements as a prerequisite for the
    exercise of retained tribal sovereign prerogatives to carry out
    those natural resource management activities or as a
    prerequisite for Self-Determination Act funding or technical
    assistance. Let's make sure we do not slide backwards through
    this bill. Let's make sure that we use the foundation we have,
    move forward, and bring more funds and more tribes into the
    assistance that the Federal Government should be providing.
        Finally, I know that there are portions of the bill that
    need to be developed, in particular with respect to health
    issues and the idea that ``what good are these natural
    resources if they are not safe for tribal members to consume.''
    The Commission offers its assistance to help develop those
    provisions. It could be somewhat complex, given that this calls
    into question perhaps the FDA-type responsibilities about the
    safe handling and processing of foods and so on. But it also
    carries issues like Mr. Frank identified, such as the idea of
    wholesome tribal wild rice harvested from nature. The rice is
    good; it is clean. It is probably about $10 more a pound than
    California-grown paddy rice, which might be genetically
    modified, and tribes are at a tremendous competitive
    disadvantage because of that type of situation. So perhaps this
    bill could help.
        With those comments, we submit our written testimony for
    the record. We continue to engage in the dialog with the staff
    and the other tribes, and we certainly thank the committee for
    its attention to this matter.
        [Prepared statement of Mr. Zorn appears in appendix.]
        Senator Inouye. Thank you very much, Mr. Zorn.
        Mr. New Breast.

        STATEMENT OF IRA NEW BREAST, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIVE
                   AMERICAN FISH AND WILDLIFE SOCIETY

        Mr. New Breast. Hello, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for this
    honor and opportunity for the Society to speak before the
    committee today.
        We would like to first again express our gratitude for the
    committee's interest and hard work, particularly the staff, and
    also recognize the dedication of the working group that has put
    together much of the language that encompasses the bill.
        Our statements are fairly short. The Society, of course, is
    a national nonprofit organization that encompasses assisting
    tribes for informational networking, education and scientific
    purposes. Ours is not necessarily an advocacy organization, but
    we do have short comments that we would like to put into the
    record.
        The bill that we are discussing here today obviously does
    face a number of challenges, the scope of which is vital in
    every aspect that is contained within the language of the bill,
    but it is broad. Because it is broad, there are many challenges
    that arise with the overall future and success of the bill. We
    have confidence in the working group that is addressing these
    things, but we would like to encourage that all concerned
    recall the original theme of the bill from the 1993 history to
    the recent Portland 2003 January discussions, is to address
    fundamental fish and wildlife conservation management. So in
    the bill, quite possibly explore avenues to narrow the focus of
    the bill, to encompass that theme and keep it in mind. Of
    course, that is as we discuss and try to consider what
    challenges may face the bill for the future.
        Ultimately, the success of the bill, of this endeavor, will
    be measured by the eventual funding for this language of the
    bill. In particular, the achievement of this will be in the
    term of permanent funding. We understand the parameters that
    are affecting the strategies in the withholding of identifying
    funding for this bill, and hope for the future as we go forward
    that this may be realized in the future.
        As an example of what the funding might look like, for over
    more than 500 Federally recognized tribes, and to realize the
    intent of the bill and proceed productively, the numbers that
    will have to be realized to provide base funding for tribes
    will have to be in the hundreds of millions. We realize this
    may be sometime in the future. But that keeps in mind from an
    individual standpoint as a former Director of the Blackfeet
    Fish and Wildlife Department, we remember this bill, and
    remember what the hopes that it had entailed basically to
    provide tribes with the funding capability to manage their fish
    and wildlife programs, their resource. So we encourage the
    committee and the working group as they move along to keep that
    in mind as we move along.
        Certainly, the Society supports the tribes in their efforts
    to realize this type of legislation, and particularly because
    we are so strong as an informational networking group, we
    encourage the use of the Society to disseminate some of the
    information to the tribes. I would like to point out that many
    tribes do not want organizations. They are in some respects
    independent, and so find it difficult at times to have their
    voice heard in different forums. So they look to the Society to
    perhaps provide that gap of information.
        So when we are talking about strategies in the development
    of this bill, and how we are incorporating all of the tribes,
    it would be in their interest to be able to at least have the
    benefit of understanding what those strategies are, rather than
    seeing the end product of what those strategies were trying to
    achieve, knowing that the overall effort is one for the benefit
    of all the tribes in their fish and wildlife interests.
        That concludes the Society's comments for today.
        Thank you.
        [Prepared statement of Mr. New Breast appears in appendix.]
        Senator Inouye. I thank you very much.
        All of you have suggested that this measure provides a
    statutory recognition of treaty rights. In essence, this bill
    does not create any further rights for Indian tribes. However,
    it will provide funds that would make it possible to implement
    these rights. Is this bill necessary to do that? Or can you
    just carry on the way you are now?
        Mr. Myers. I can take a shot at that. I think it is
    necessary. There is really limited amount of money, at least in
    our perspective; I should not say our perspective, the tribal
    perspective; there are not a lot of funds available to actually
    do work. We are not looking to create new levels of bureaucracy
    or new programs or whatever. But the funds are limited on a
    major scale.
        That is one of the reasons, I guess every time I come out
    here I may sound like a broken record, but I champion the
    Circle of Flight program, and on the grand scale it is
    relatively meager dollars, what it does on the ground is really
    allows the tribes to become a player out there in the ceded
    territories. We cooperate with the Federal Government. We
    cooperative with country governments, state governments. There
    are private organizations like Ducks Unlimited, as well as
    individuals who are just interested in a certain resource.
        So I guess hopefully what this bill would do would maybe
    expand some of those areas where funding may become available.
    Even that one sort of gets put on the cutting floor every year.
    But again, on the grand scale, a meager amount of dollars, but
    on the ground where the tribes are actually working, it has
    just done amazing things for us.
        Senator Inouye. So you consider the important element to be
    funding?
        Mr. Myers. Certainly a part of it. We could have the
    statutory framework to say, yes, we are tribes and we have the
    rights out there, and that is all fine and dandy, which helps,
    but it is certainly nice to have some funds available to
    actually participate in those processes. I do not think anyone
    is looking for expanded programs, but it would really be nice
    to have some dollars to hit the ground and work on the
    resources with.
        Senator Inouye. Mr. Zorn.
        Mr. Zorn. To endorse and to add to what Mr. Myers said, the
    bill certainly is necessary from the perspective of Congress
    directing Federal agencies to recognize the Federal
    Government's trust and treaty obligations. We often hear from
    agencies that ``oh, it is not within our organic statute,'' say
    the Army Corps of Engineers about the issuance of 404 permits,
    ``it is not within our statutes here to look at tribes and
    their treaty rights as anything else other than a public
    interest-type criteria.'' The Corps needs to recognize that the
    Federal Government does have unique obligations towards tribes.
    In that sense, this bill would be very necessary and very
    helpful to get those other agencies to recognize and implement
    the Federal Government's trust and treaty obligations.
        Then the bill is also necessary in the context of the
    larger picture forboth congress and executive branch in terms
    of the standing of tribal natural resource management programs,
    that they are a congressionally recognized, important aspect of
    tribal sovereignty and that they should get the attention they
    deserve, hopefully within Interior as well as within other
    agencies. And the bill would allow the tribes and others to do
    the battle for the budget. We can no longer hear that, well,
    natural resources are over here; no they are here; they are
    center stage; they are part and parcel of tribal sovereignty
    and a very important part. So in that sense, the bill is very
    necessary.
        Will the tribes continue, as Senator Smith said, to do what
    they have done for millennia without this bill? They certainly
    will. Will this bill help them do a better job and help this
    Nation do a better job and get better results for this Nation's
    natural resources? This bill will certainly help and is
    necessary.
        Senator Inouye. Mr. Zorn, in your written testimony, you
    spoke of the dual management dilemma. Can you give us an
    example of that?
        Mr. Zorn. For example, the national forests, as Mr. Myers
    said. They are part of the public land-base off the
    reservations where the tribes may exercise their treaty-
    reserved hunting, fishing, and gathering rights. The tribes
    went to the national forest and said, look, we think we can
    gather some wild plants here for medicinal, cultural and other
    purposes like we have always done, including wild rice. You
    would face potentially the argument that the National Forest
    Management Act, the Four Corners statute of that agency, did
    not say anything about the Forest Service recognizing and
    implementing these rights and honoring these rights. It
    provided no guidance to the agency as to how the Forest Service
    should exercise its Federal management responsibility over
    those lands to make sure those tribal rights were indeed
    honored.
        So we sometimes will face the issue where the agency will
    say, ``we have this job to do that Congress gave us, but
    Congress has provided us no guidance as to that other stovepipe
    of the trust and treaty obligations.''
        Senator Inouye. Mr. New Breast, how do you view this bill
    as assisting your organization?
        Mr. New Breast. One of the mechanisms of assistance that
    this bill would do in regard to creating the type of base
    funding that is needed throughout Indian country is raise
    capacity for all aspects of the infrastructure of an
    organization, whether they are tribal fish and wildlife or they
    are broader Indian organizations. In that, they raise the
    capacity. They also inherently imbue far more capability to
    productively interact on a cooperative basis, whether it is
    collaboration that translates into cooperative agreements,
    memoranda of agreements.
        For instance, from personal experience, the Blackfeet Tribe
    got themselves involved with an international cooperative
    agreement which dealt with the Canadian Government, provincial
    and Federal; dealt with Canadian tribes; and dealt with the
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The national parks were also
    involved in this agreement. It all had to do with recovering
    the endangered bull trout in the St. Mary drainage of Montana.
    Through that cooperative effort, there existed very little
    funds. But through the united effort, much work has been able
    to be done. On a scientific basis, we were able to put together
    all of our information in one area so that we could effectively
    address that resource. So it continues to be a success up in
    Montana, and that is one example.
        The Acoma of New Mexico worked very cooperatively with both
    the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Federal agency law
    enforcement, as well as the New Mexican entities. These type of
    cooperative efforts serve only to be enhanced. What we face
    today is nationally, regardless of who the entity is that is
    managing the fish and wildlife, is a steady decrease in the
    interest in the viability of our fish and wildlife resource. So
    tribes just look to try and play their part in that overall
    role of united effort to see the best interests of fish and
    wildlife.
        So that is how I see the priorities being directed as an
    endeavor for not only the tribes, but as they outreach to other
    entities as well.
        Senator Inouye. Senator Smith.
        Senator Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        As I have listened to the testimony, it does seem to me
    that this bill is important because it gives the tribes an
    authoritative voice, though not a veto, in the formulation of
    Federal natural resource policy. I think that that is an
    authoritative voice that is long overdue in being heard on a
    government-to-government basis.
        So I had intended in my opening statement to express
    support for the Native American Fish and Wildlife Resources
    Management Act of 2004, and my able assistant has pointed out
    to me I expressed support for the current statute, the National
    Indian Forest Resource Management Act. So for the record, I
    correct that and simply conclude my part in the hearing today
    by saying I hope that this new Act will further add to the
    discussion of self-determination and self-governance of Native
    Americans.
        Thank you, sir.
        Senator Inouye. I thank you very much.
        This bill may have an impact upon every tribe in this
    Nation. Are there any exceptions that might be anticipated? Are
    your problems the same as the problems of the Northwest or the
    Southeast?
        Mr. Zorn. If I may, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Inouye. Sure.
        Mr. Zorn. The tribes' situation with natural resource
    management and natural resource management activities are very
    similar, but each tribe has its own bundle of rights,
    responsibilities and sovereign prerogatives. As we know, a
    tribe retains that authority which they have not voluntarily
    relinquished, or Congress in the exercise of its plenary power
    has not taken away. Each treaty needs to be looked at in its
    own particular circumstance, own particular terms, own
    particular historical examination of what that treaty was
    intended to mean and what it actually does mean.
        So in that sense, there certainly are individual tribal
    needs that may be different from tribe to tribe. There
    certainly are different regional needs. I do think that that is
    one thing that we must pay attention to in this bill, that as
    you try to paint with as broad a stroke as possible to handle
    some of these very similar problems, that you make sure that no
    tribe's individual sovereign prerogatives are left out of the
    picture here in some way. I think some care is going to have to
    be given to that.
        Mr. New Breast. Mr. Chairman, just as we often see that
    good science provides the answer to many difficult questions,
    just as I mentioned earlier, the topic of fundamental fish and
    wildlife conservation management being the theme to direct
    that, despite the differences, if you will, inherent
    differences of tribes in regard to what their cultural
    situation is, their relationship to the resident habitat and
    the resources, that general theme will provide the guidance,
    the beacon that needs to come through and reach the needs of
    the tribes.
        Senator Inouye. I thank you, gentleman, very much for your
    contributions. May I assure everyone here that all of your
    prepared statements will be made part of the record.
        And before I forget, the record will be kept open until May
    31, so if you wish to make addendums or corrections, please
    feel free to do so.
        Our final panel consists of the first chief of Stevens,
    Stevens Village, AK, Randy Mayo, accompanied by the Natural
    Resource and Environmental Program director of Stevens Village,
    Dewey Schwalenberg; and the director of the Business and
    Sustainable Development Central Council Tlingit and Haida
    Tribes of Alaska, Juneau, AK, Gordon Jackson; and the president
    of the Inter-Tribal Bison Cooperative, Rapid City, SD, Ervin
    Carlson, accompanied by the Inter-Tribal Bison Cooperative of
    Rapid City, Fred Dubray.
        Mr. Mayo.

            STATEMENT OF RANDY MAYO, FIRST CHIEF OF STEVENS
              VILLAGE, AK, ACCOMPANIED BY DEWEY SCHWALEN-
              BERG, NATURAL RESOURCE/ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM
                                DIRECTOR

        Mr. Mayo. Thank you, Chairman Inouye, members of the
    committee, honored guests, for this opportunity to testify
    before you here in the oversight hearing on S. 2301, a
    discussion draft bill that would improve the management of
    Native American fish and wildlife and gathering, and for other
    purposes.
        I am honored by this invitation to present oral testimony
    to the committee. Our written testimony has already been
    submitted by our tribal natural resource director, Dewey
    Schwalenberg, seated here to my left.
        I speak today in support of this bill and on behalf of my
    215 tribal members, and for the other community residents of
    Stevens Village, who would stand to benefit from the resource
    management and protection that this bill will provide to my
    community.
        Stevens Village is located 90 air miles north of Fairbanks
    on the north bank of the Yukon River. There are 30 households
    in the village and 90 residents. Most are tribal members and
    shareholders in the Dinyee Native Village Corporation. I am the
    vice president of the Dinyee Corporation. The remainder of the
    tribal members reside in Fairbanks or other communities because
    they need to have work, which is difficult to find in the
    village.
        Many of our members would like to live in the village and
    most do use fish and wildlife and forestry resources from our
    traditional lands during certain seasons of the year. There are
    no roads to Stevens Village. Transportation is by small plane,
    by boat up the Yukon River from the Yukon River Bridge on the
    Dalton Highway, 27 miles downstream from the village, or by
    snow machine or dog sled to the bridge in the winter. Barges
    come up the river twice a year to deliver fuel and construction
    materials. Air freight for personal goods to the village is 45
    cents per pound. None of the houses have sewer and water, but
    we do have treated water and sewer to the school and water
    plant.
        The school has 13 students from preschool to 12th grade.
    The Council is the largest employer in the village and we have
    seven full-time workers and 12 to 15 seasonal workers. The
    tribal lands and natural resources program employs most of our
    workers for fisheries, wildlife, forestry and environmental
    projects. Without the resource program, the community would
    have little employment. Funding for these programs has been
    challenging to maintain. Periodic grants have kept the program
    going for the past six years, but permanent funding is
    necessary soon or we will lose this portion of our economy.
        Our people are very much dependent upon the salmon that
    comes up-river in the summer and on moose that live around the
    village. The moose population is at a very low level and we
    have taken steps to begin raising buffalo to supplement our
    meat supply.
        To provide the technical comments on this bill, I will ask
    Mr. Schwalenberg to use the rest of our time to highlight our
    technical testimony.
        Thank you.
        [Prepared statement of Mr. Mayo appears in appendix.]
        Senator Inouye. Mr. Schwalenberg.
        Mr. Schwalenberg. Thank you, Chief Mayo, and thank you, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Our written testimony will explain what type of programs
    that the tribe up in the Yukon River area actually undertakes.
    What I would like to talk a little about this morning is the
    genesis of where the tribal authority for managing resources
    comes from in Alaska.
        As you know, in the bill there is a title III section on
    Alaska Native Fish and Wildlife Programs, and I think a lot of
    people do not understand that each tribe in Alaska does have a
    constitution. The tribal government in Stevens Village's
    constitution was passed in 1939 and approved by the Secretary
    of Interior, and it was amended in 1990. Under the provisions
    of the constitution, we see that one of the critical
    responsibilities of tribal government is management of natural
    resources for and on behalf of the benefit of its people. So
    that is where the tribe assumes is authority to manage
    resources.
        Stevens Village is also a government in the town site and
    the only government, only municipal government, and therefore
    has responsibilities of managing resources and the well-being
    of its people in pretty much about 3,000 acres of land.
        So what type of management program the Stevens Village
    Council has put together has been one of managing the moose
    populations, wildlife, fisheries, environmental testing of its
    waters and its resources, and above all putting together
    employment opportunities for its people.
        So we serve as program director and managers to train local
    people in how to conduct research technician activities, how to
    collect traditional harvest data. We work cooperatively with
    the State of Alaska Department of Fish and Game and the U.S.
    Fish and Wildlife Service refuge program. We work cooperatively
    on aerial moose surveys. We did a northern pike radiotelemetry
    project for about 6 years that indicated there was negative
    impact on large quality fish populations, which in turn led to
    the State of Alaska Board of Fish making some regulatory
    changes that benefitted the tribes, its members and also the
    State residents.
        We do the same thing with the Subsistence Board for moose
    hunting regulations and the bear hunting regulations that the
    tribal government determined were necessary through our
    research, were taken to the Board of Subsistence. The Board of
    Subsistence passed those regulations.
        So the tribes in Alaska are not attempting to develop a
    brand new system. They are using the existing system out there
    that protects the resources. What we are asking for in this
    bill is the fact that the Federal Government recognize the
    contribution that the tribal governments are making and
    recognize the struggle that these tribal governments in Alaska
    are making, and hopefully we will be able to find some
    permanent funding so that these programs would be able to
    become more institutionalized in a cooperative manner with
    State and Federal.
        But in conclusion, what I would like to do is just tell you
    one quick anecdote an elder in the village told me when I
    questioned when I first showed up there 12 years ago. I
    questioned the management, whether people knew professional
    management, et cetera. I really did not know. I was naive. So
    one of the elders told me about an experience. He was up one of
    the tributary rivers in the late fall. The water levels had
    receded and there was a beaver dam with a beaver pool. He said,
    behind the beaver pool all the whitefish and the pike were
    trapped in that beaver pool. I said, well, what did you do? And
    he said, well, I opened it up so that they could get out.
        So people historically have known how to manage their
    resources. He opened that beaver dam up so those whitefish
    could get back to the main stem of the Yukon River and survive
    the winter, because back in the shallow waters of a beaver pond
    they are going to freeze to death over winter.
        It is just one of these anecdotes after another that
    indicate to me that tribes and the Native people of Alaska have
    always participated in resource management. It was a
    traditional sense of management, and that is what we have done
    in our program. We have incorporated those traditional values
    and management practices into our scientific programs, and that
    is why we feel they are so successful.
        So we are very supportive of this bill. One technical
    question I brought up in S. 2105 is the term ``Alaska Native
    fish and wildlife organizations.'' I noticed in our attempt to
    bring this bill before you, we have put Alaska Native Claims
    Settlement Act and we have put the Indian Self-Determination
    Act provisions together in the title III Alaskan section, so
    that all of those provisions together make this portion of the
    Act. I did notice one thing in section five where it says, the
    term ``Alaska Native fish and wildlife organization means
    commission authority or other entity chartered for the primary
    purpose.'' We believe strongly in the Indian self-determination
    that that should read, ``authority or other entity chartered by
    one or more tribes for the primary purpose.''
        If we do not keep the tribes involved in this explicitly,
    we are going to find out that the tribes will end up as normal
    not receiving any of the benefits of this act. The tribes can
    cooperate with their village corporations and regional
    corporations to conduct management activities, but we would
    like to see that tribal language in this bill.
        Thank you very much.
        [Prepared statement of Mr. Schwalenberg appears in
    appendix.]
        Senator Inouye. I thank you, sir.
        Mr. Jackson.

    STATEMENT OF GORDON JACKSON, DIRECTOR, BUSINESS AND SUSTAINABLE
    DEVELOPMENT, CENTRAL COUNCIL TLINGIT AND HAIDA TRIBES OF ALASKA

        Mr. Jackson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        My name is Gordon Jackson. I am the director of business
    and Sustainable Development for the Central Council of Tlingit
    and Haida Indians of Alaska, with 24,000 members located
    throughout the Pacific Northwest.
        I also provide staff support to the Southeast Alaska Inter-
    Tribal Fish and Wildlife Commission. I am also the Chairman of
    the Board of Kake Travel Corporation.
        We have provided written testimony and rather than read it,
    I am just going to provide some information in supplement for
    the record. I think that a lot of folks that talked about the
    bill, I really appreciate the opportunity to be part of this. I
    have been in Portland and have spoken to various members of the
    group behind me by e-mail or by teleconference. I think that
    the bill has come a long ways. It is getting better every time
    a draft is developed. I think that by the time it gets through
    the whole process, I think it is going to be a very good piece
    of legislation.
        As the director of business and sustainable development in
    southeast Alaska, I find that job relatively tough. Over the
    last several years, we have developed economic summits in
    several communities in southeast Alaska from Prince of Wales
    Island to Angoon and Hoonah. We find a number of things
    relating to the needs of the communities almost the same. Some
    of the items that have been developed over the last several
    years is that we find that the logging economy is getting
    smaller and smaller. As the Native corporations complete the
    harvesting of their land, we have lost thousands of jobs in
    village Alaska. That is in contrast to the big boom of the
    1990's. Hundreds of people are out of work in the communities
    relating to logging.
        In addition to the downturn of the logging economy, there
    is a huge downturn in the fishing industry that continues in
    villages today with the loss of processors and markets,
    primarily due to the influx of farmed salmon throughout the
    world. Farmed salmon has taken over the market for wild salmon,
    and I think it has been devastating throughout the Pacific
    Northwest.
        There has been little penetration of tourism in rural
    communities in southeast Alaska, although there is going to be
    almost 900,000 off-loaded in Juneau, relatively little of them
    trickle in to the smaller communities of southeast Alaska. I
    think that the prospects of getting any kind of those jobs are
    really small.
        So the unemployment rate in smaller village Alaska is very
    high. The prospects for any kinds of huge economic development
    activity is very small.
        Because of the decline in the fishing community and the
    commercial fishing in our communities, and the need to address
    subsistence consistently in southeast Alaska, we in the Central
    Council developed a southeast Alaska Inter-Tribal Fish and
    Wildlife Commission. We wanted to address subsistence and
    commercial fishing. We patterned our organizational structure
    based on the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission and
    Northwest Indian Fish Commission. All of our members joined
    this Commission by resolution, and have made this organization
    very strong and have upheld our responsibilities to address
    these many things.
        We have done a number of things over the last couple of
    years since the organization was organized. We have worked
    cooperatively with many organizations, including the Migratory
    Bird Council. Several years ago, the Migratory Bird Treaty
    organized a cooperative body that is composed of all of the
    regional village and regional tribal organizations, and the
    state and Federal Government. You have a great big cooperative
    body that figures out the seasons for taking of migratory birds
    up and down the Pacific Northwest and Alaska.
        We have addressed through cooperative associations the
    Marine Mammal Act, where members of the body of the association
    in Alaska addresses marine mammals up and down the coast of
    Alaska. We have been monitoring the Pacific Salmon Treaty. Lots
    of our fish originate from the Great Columbia River Basin.
    Earlier today you heard folks talking about spill over the
    Columbia River. That affects the fish for the tribes in Oregon
    and Washington. It also affects the return of the Chinook
    salmon in southeast Alaska, which come in great numbers and
    used to come in millions of numbers throughout the coast of
    southeast Alaska. Whatever happens on the Columbia River
    negatively also negatively affects the people in southeast
    Alaska.
        We have worked to develop a plan to work cooperatively with
    the State of Alaska. We have been monitoring the cruise ships
    that go through southeast Alaska that have been known to dump
    gray water throughout the interior surfaces of southeast Alaska
    that affect not only the wild salmon, but our subsistence way
    of life, so we are monitoring that very carefully.
        Addressing commercial fishing has been relatively rough. I
    grew up in that industry. In my short lifetime, I witnessed
    huge problems in the downfall of this industry. When I was
    young, that industry was the number one employer in southeast
    Alaska. Today, that is struggling. Last year, I provided on
    June 3 some really depressing figures relating to the downfall
    of that industry in southeast Alaska. The limited entry permit
    system came into existence in the 1970's. That provided the
    right for many of the people to fish in southeast Alaska. In
    the 1970's, the community of Kake received 29 limited entry
    permits. They have eight active permits now. The community of
    Angoon received 27 active permits. They now have one active
    permit. The community of Hoonah had 53 limited entry permits.
    They now have four active permits.
        There are few processors available in the villages, and
    this will not get any better this year, with two more
    processors announcing the fact that they are going to be
    leaving southeast Alaska. This is due to a whole bunch of
    things relating to the market in wild salmon. Like I said
    earlier, the inundation of farmed salmon throughout the world
    has had a devastating impact on the marketing of wild salmon in
    Alaska.
        Another thing that has been really affecting the fishing
    community in southeast Alaska is the loss of halibut IFQs. One
    huge example of this loss is that in the community of Kake, the
    National Marine Fisheries Service told us last week when we
    were working on a piece of legislation in the State legislature
    that the community of Kake started out with 300,000 pounds of
    halibut IFQ, with the IFQ ability to sell those IFQs that came
    along with the rule and regulation, they now have only 100,000
    pounds. It basically means 200,000 pounds of halibut has been
    lost through the sale of the individual fishing quota for
    halibut.
        Now, the National Marine Fisheries Service through the
    North Pacific Fisheries Management Council has adopted a rule
    and regulation that allows communities to buy as a first right
    any halibut or black cod quota that leaves the community. We
    have been working on ways to implement that and have worked on
    loans relating to it because we feel very strongly about the
    local control of fisheries. I think that that will do a heck of
    a lot to keep the halibut quota within the community.
        I think that, in looking at a lot of the provision of S.
    2301, I think that a lot of it will address many of the items
    relating to what is needed in the Pacific Northwest, for
    instance, marketing of Alaska and Pacific Northwest wild
    salmon.
        The markets have been in a dump the last 5 to 10 years. The
    loss of that market to farmed salmon is a direct result of a
    number of things, including not only marketing, but also
    different value-added products and other things like keeping
    the fish cold and making sure that the quality is good. But
    that provision, I think, is great. I think that anything that
    relates to marketing of salmon is good. The more markets we
    open up domestically on a national level and international
    level I think is pretty good.
        S. 2301 is a good step toward self-sufficiency and self-
    determination. Mr. Chairman, I thank you very much for giving
    me the opportunity to comment on this. I think as we go through
    the process it will be much improved. We look forward to its
    implementation and enactment.
        Thank you very much.
        [Prepared statement of Mr. Jackson appears in appendix.]
        Senator Inouye. I thank you very much, Mr. Jackson.
        And now may I call on President Carlson.

       STATEMENT OF ERVIN CARLSON, PRESIDENT, INTER-TRIBAL BISON
      COOPERATIVE, ACCOMPANIED BY FRED DUBRAY, INTER-TRIBAL BISON
                      COOPERATIVE, RAPID CITY, SD

        Mr. Carlson. Good morning, Honorable Senator. I thank you
    for allowing me here to speak and present this morning.
        For the record, my name is Ervin Carlson. I am the
    president of the Inter-Tribal Bison Cooperative, a nonprofit
    organization. We are comprised of 53 federally recognized
    tribes across 18 States. I am honored to present this testimony
    on behalf of the ITBC members in support of passage of S. 2301.
        The ITBC commends the committee's efforts to finally
    acknowledge and reaffirm the special relationship that exists
    between Native Americans and the fish and wildlife of this
    country.
        Native Americans have long believed they exist as co-owners
    of this Earth, with fish and wildlife. S. 2301 provides Native
    Americans an opportunity to develop the capacity and access to
    resources to protect, preserve and enhance fish and wildlife
    resources, including buffalo. While ITBC strongly supports and
    endorses S. 2301 as it applies to all fish and wildlife
    resources, my following remarks are specific to buffalo as
    ITBC's primary objective is to assist tribes with restoring and
    enhancing buffalo on Indian lands.
        Historians estimate that approximately 30 million to 80
    million buffalo thrived on the Great Plains of the United
    States for many centuries, before they were hunted by the non-
    Indian to near-extinction in the 1800's. Native Americans of
    the Great Plains thrived on the abundant buffalo prior to being
    relocated and restricted to Indian reservations.
        For many generations, buffalo ensured the survival of
    Native Americans of the Great Plains. Naturally, this
    coexistence of Native Americans and buffalo on the Great Plains
    resulted in the longstanding spiritual and cultural connection
    between Native Americans and buffalo.
        Buffalo provided Native Americans with food, shelter,
    clothing and essential tools, and ensured the continuance of
    their subsistence way of life, resulting in a self-sufficient
    existence that was devastated along with the destruction of the
    buffalo herds.
        The lifestyle of the tribes dominated by interaction with
    the natural world was profoundly impacted by the needless loss
    of the buffalo that most tribes still consider to be a
    holocaust. While Native Americans of the Great Plains have been
    forced away from their customary subsistence lifestyle, their
    profound respect for buffalo remains. Buffalo remains an
    integral part and component of the cultural and religious
    beliefs and ceremonies of Native Americans.
        The passage of time has not diminished the spiritual and
    cultural connection that we Native Americans have with buffalo,
    and a strong desire exists among Native Americans to repopulate
    Indian lands with healthy buffalo. In 1992, seven tribes
    committed to this, to preserving the sacred relationship
    between buffalo and Native Americans, and established the ITBC
    as an effort to restore buffalo to Indian lands.
        ITBC focused its restoration efforts on reservation lands
    that often did not sustain other economic or agricultural
    efforts. Lands that were unproductive for farming or raising
    livestock were and still are suitable for buffalo. ITBC began
    actively restoring buffalo to Indian lands upon the receipt of
    limited grant funding from the Department of the Interior.
        The organization began with seven founding tribes and
    approximately 1,500 animals. Today, 53 tribes have joined ITBC
    and 35 of those tribes have various sizes of herds, with
    approximately now 15,000 animals. However, the restoration
    efforts remain in the infancy stages as the buffalo herds have
    not yet developed to a degree to overcome the loss to the
    tribal cultures as many herds are comprised of very few animals
    and many herds remain vulnerable to limited resources for
    proper management.
        Many ITBC member tribes desire to raise buffalo only as a
    spiritual and cultural effort. These tribes wish to cultivate
    their religious and spiritual connections to the buffalo and
    are not interested in commercial marketing of the buffalo for
    economic development efforts. However, some of these tribes are
    interested in the harvest of buffalo only for the purpose of
    feeding tribal members. Therefore, while ITBC's restoration
    efforts remain paramount, numerous ITBC member tribes that have
    maintained viable buffalo herds are now interested in
    developing the means to provide buffalo to Native American
    populations as a healthy food source.
        Native Americans currently suffer from the highest rates of
    type 2 diabetes and they also suffer at extreme rates from
    cardiovascular and various other diet-related diseases. Studies
    indicate that type 2 diabetes commonly emerges when a
    population undergoes radical diet changes. Native Americans
    have been forced to abandon traditional diets rich in wild
    game, buffalo and plants. Based on current data, it is safe to
    assume that disease rates of Native Americans are directly
    impacted by a genetic inability to effectively metabolize
    modern foods. Range-fed buffalo meat is low in fat and
    cholesterol and is compatible to the genetics of Indian people.
    ITBC strives to develop an educational initiative to
    reintroduce buffalo into the diets of Native Americans to
    combat the high rates of diet-related diseases.
        With that history as to the buffalo there, I would also
    like to talk about our support for S. 2301. ITBC supports the
    passage of Federal legislation that acknowledges the
    significant relationship between Native Americans and the fish
    and wildlife resources located on Indian lands. Native
    Americans coexisted with fish and wildlife in this country for
    many centuries. The rights of tribes to continue with hunting,
    fishing and gathering wildlife resources has been recognized
    and guaranteed in Indian treaties between tribes and the United
    States.
        S. 2301 will acknowledge the inherent sovereign authority
    of tribes to manage fish and wildlife resources within their
    respective jurisdictions, and provide tribes with the means to
    develop and achieve meaningful management objectives.
    Legislation specifically authorizing tribes to manage fish and
    wildlife resources is consistent with the promotion of tribal
    self-determination.
        Additionally, ITBC believes S. 2301 will foster the sound
    management of tribal fish and wildlife resources, that in turn
    will have a positive effect on tribal economies. S. 2301
    solidifies the trust duty of the United States to ensure proper
    management of tribal fish and wildlife resources.
        S. 2301 will provide critical funding to allow Native
    American tribes to investigate and inventory fish and wildlife
    resources, and then to develop the capacity to effectively
    manage those resources. Upon proper identification of
    resources, tribes will be empowered to address the protection,
    conservation and enhancement of fish and wildlife. Presently,
    many tribes have not developed regulatory schemes for their
    fish and wildlife resources such as buffalo, and do not have
    the trained personnel to best protect these resources. S. 2301
    will allow tribes to develop effective management plans that
    will maximize the production of fish and wildlife, including
    buffalo, to better meet tribal subsistence, ceremony,
    recreational and commercial needs.
        Additionally, S. 2301 will create employment opportunities
    for tribal members in wildlife management positions. S. 2301
    also establishes a framework for the long-range goal of some
    ITBC member tribes to commercially market buffalo meat through
    the authority, to develop certification standards, and
    marketing initiatives. ITBC member tribes have been frustrated
    with the inability to coordinate with the Secretary of
    Agriculture to furnish tribally produced, range- fed buffalo to
    the food distribution program for Indian reservations. S. 2301
    would allow ITBC member tribes to develop an alternative,
    tribally controlled program to distribute natural range-fed
    buffalo to Native American populations.
        Additionally, S. 2301 requires the Secretary of Agriculture
    to consult with tribes to allow tribes meaningful participation
    in USDA programs and to improve the diet-related health
    conditions of Indian people.
        Finally, S. 2301 would allow ITBC and its member tribes the
    resources to offer meaningful alternatives to the needless
    killing of Yellowstone-area buffalo.
        In conclusion, the passage of S. 2301 will ensure that the
    critical efforts of ITBC to restore buffalo to Indian lands
    will continue. Currently, ITBC has been funded only by yearly
    grants with no assurance of continuous funding. Although ITBC
    has made significant and admirable progress to restore buffalo
    to Indian lands, the herds remain in stages of infancy.
    Consistent and adequate funding is critical to continue with
    the restoration efforts.
        S. 2301 will allow tribes to achieve the goal of providing
    healthy range-fed buffalo to American Indian populations to
    combat diet-related diseases. Most importantly, S. 2301 will
    allow tribes to restore and manage buffalo herds on their
    tribal lands in a manner that is compatible with the economic
    goals and the spiritual and cultural beliefs of the tribes.
        ITBC believes that this legislative effort is long overdue
    and strongly urges its passage. And also we would urge to
    incorporate some appropriate language in there to ensure that
    the buffalo are protected and managed in a manner compatible to
    the tribal interests.
        Thank you.
        [Prepared statement of Mr. Carlson appears in appendix.]
        Senator Inouye. I thank you very much, Mr. Carlson.
        Chief Mayo, I have listened to your testimony very
    carefully. You speak of your village being landlocked during
    the wintertime. There is no highway connecting you to the rest
    of Alaska. There is no air base and a barge goes up there twice
    a year, and they charge you 45 cents a pound, and your
    unemployment is high. How many people live in Stevens Village?
        Mr. Mayo. Probably about 90 to 100, give or take the 10
    people that go back and forth or so.
        Senator Inouye. So the population of your community is 90
    people?
        Mr. Mayo. Just in our community, but we have a great many
    tribal members living all over, Fairbanks, Anchorage, down in
    the Lower 48, that because of economic and educational
    opportunities have had to move.
        Senator Inouye. And you believe that this measure will
    address your conditions?
        Mr. Mayo. I believe it would really help in rebuilding our
    community through the different aspects that this bill would
    do. Even though we sound very remote and a very small
    community, with the coming of the oil pipeline and road, that
    caused a great impact by people coming in to our area and
    competing for a very limited subsistence resource.
        In the first place, we have to develop a resource program
    there, and also this would really help us, and the educational
    and training aspects of providing employment, but also get our
    elders involved to start training and give insight to our
    younger tribal members in the cultural and spiritual aspects in
    our relationship with the land and animals around us.
        It would really give them some identity and a foundation to
    get out there in the world and seek higher education to start
    learning the western biological aspects of resource management.
    And also, in the ways of some of the marketing of seafood and
    bison section of it, that eventually we have to start becoming
    self-sufficient. We see that down the road this would provide
    culturally relevant economic development opportunities for us.
        I also serve as the Chairman of the Council of Athabascan
    Tribal Governments, a 10-member inter-tribal consortium. In
    fact, I recognize two tribal members that have gone out and
    have come back to the communities and are offering some of
    their educational training to the efforts of looking after our
    natural resources and lands surrounding our communities. If I
    could recognize Craig Fleener and Ben Stevens here, if they are
    still here. They had to leave to another meeting.
        We also have a lot of our younger high school kids that are
    very interested. They want to stay at home, but the
    opportunities are very limited. We are entering a new economy
    now, and that being a more and more cash-based economy. For
    years, like I mentioned, we have to develop a program because
    of the impacts coming off of this oil pipeline road. Even in
    the wintertime, a lot of recreationists and just competition
    for a limited resource already that a lot of our people do want
    to move back.
        I myself, my family had to move for economic and
    educational reasons, and after being out in the world quite a
    few years, I found my way back home and I am now raising my
    family in our ancestral homeland. We had cobbled our resource
    program together with an unsteady funding base for quite a few
    years now, with the help of our Director who is also trained,
    and other younger tribal members, we jus get by on whatever we
    can raise to ensure that we look out for these resources in the
    most traditional manner in contemporary times as possible, and
    reaffirm our relationship with these animals through our tribal
    governance.
        We have been for many years working as cooperative managers
    with the Fish and Wildlife Service. We are located in the Yukon
    Flats National Wildlife Refuge, so we work as cooperative
    managers with these folks, and also with the state Department
    of Fish and Game, and as Dewey here had mentioned, that we work
    within the existing system up there to affect regulation and
    change based on the collection of scientific data. In this way,
    we try to insert a lot of our traditional knowledge and
    science, just our understanding of the resources and lands
    around us, through our program here.
        So I see this would really help us out in the long run.
        Senator Inouye. I thank you very much, Chief.
        Mr. Schwalenberg, what role do Alaska Natives have at this
    moment in developing regulatory programs to manage fish and
    wildlife programs? Do they have any role?
        Mr. Schwalenberg. Currently, the role of Alaska Natives in
    the management regime is an advisory role to the existing Game
    Board of Fish through an advisory council or through the
    subsistence board through rural advisory councils. Native
    people also form co-management entities with Federal agencies
    such as the Whaling Commission or the Sea Harbor Commission,
    the Sea Otter Commission, where the agencies work directly with
    Native subsistence users to form these working groups. And then
    the management that is developed through those groups is
    implemented by the state and Federal agencies.
        The tribes themselves have no position on any of these
    commissions or entities. Tribal governments do not have a seat
    at the table, but Native people do. So the regime is pretty
    much involved Native people, but has ignored the tribal
    governments and their specific governing role.
        Senator Inouye. But tribal people have what role? Advisory
    only?
        Mr. Schwalenberg. Yes; everybody is in an advisory capacity
    within the existing regime.
        Senator Inouye. Would this change the situation, this bill?
        Mr. Schwalenberg. We do not believe that it is going to
    change that situation because the tribes are not intending to
    exercise any authority over the State or Federal management of
    resources. The tribes are intending to manage resources for the
    benefit of their people and they will do it in a cooperative
    manner because, as an example, the corporation lands, Stevens
    Village has a land-use plan and has a land-use agreement with
    its village corporation. The village corporation has 136,000
    acres around the village, and the tribe serves as the managing
    entity that manages the resources within those corporation
    lands. The Doyan Regional Corporation throughout the Yukon
    Flats has about 2.4 million acres of lands, and we work
    cooperatively with them.
        So the bill does not recognize any authority that the
    tribal governments do not currently have, nor does it diminish
    any of the authority that the tribal government has because of
    its sovereignty and its constitutional provisions. So the
    Government recognizes that the lands that it has authority on,
    and where it does not have legal authority, it develops
    cooperative management agreements and then participates in the
    management.
        Senator Inouye. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Jackson, you spoke of your high unemployment rates and
    that fish and wildlife, fishing especially, may be the only
    source of food and employment you have. What has been your
    experience with co-management agreements regarding the
    management of fish and wildlife?
        Mr. Jackson. Our experience has been very positive. At the
    table, for instance, at the Migratory Bird Treaty, the state
    and Federal Government work with tribal governments in the
    development of a plan relating to migratory birds in Alaska.
    And we developed rules and regulations relating to it. We
    worked all these policies out amongst one another. I think it
    works very good in the case, along with marine mammals.
        In many cases, many communities initiate these kind of
    things. For instance, last year I could tell you about Kanalku
    Creek on Admiralty Island in Southeast Alaska, the runs of red
    salmon, sockeye salmon were going low. They decided at the
    local level that they would not take any of those sockeye
    salmon until the runs came back. With the state and Federal
    Government, they developed a plan, initiated by local folks
    that would do that. Everybody has basically watched that creek
    and managed it together.
        So I think in my experience in Alaska, it has been real
    positive if everybody understands their role. I know there has
    been a lot of debate relating to that. It only breaks down when
    one party does not understand their duties and
    responsibilities. As long as everybody understands their role,
    I think it works fairly decently and you are able to work out
    the kinks.
        Senator Inouye. Do you believe that this legislation would
    encourage the continuation of such co-management agreements?
        Mr. Jackson. I think it would. There is adequate provision
    in the legislation that allows for cooperative agreements among
    everyone.
        Senator Inouye. Thank you.
        Mr. Carlson, you spoke of your buffalo herd increasing from
    1,500 to 15,000, and you mentioned that you were receiving a
    grant per year. How much do you receive?
        Mr. Carlson. Our funding is through the Department of the
    Interior. In the past year, we received $2.2 million, but this
    is funding that is just yearly funding and subject to change at
    any time or not be there. That is a real problem to ITBC.
        Senator Inouye. So you received $2.6 million last year?
        Mr. Carlson. $2.2 million.
        Senator Inouye. $2.2 million. What would you need to
    increase your herd further?
        Mr. Carlson. We have 53 member tribes as of now, and just
    to speak on the money that we need, the $2.2 million sounds
    like maybe a lot of money, but in fact when it is distributed
    out between the needs of the 53 tribes, it does not cover that.
    I believe a two percent increase would help the tribes to get
    the herds to a sustainable amount.
        Senator Inouye. In order to implement the provisions of
    this measure, obviously it would necessitate funds. I would
    like to receive from all of the witnesses today some indication
    of what level of funding would be necessary to reasonably put
    this bill into effect. We would like to know what we are
    talking about as to what the level of funding may look like. I
    am certain my colleagues would like to know.
        Yes, sir?
        Mr. Carlson. As to ITBC and to the restoration efforts, I
    would like to answer the question that was asked a little
    earlier about the funding, and also to this which you are
    asking now. With ITBC, we take the proposals from those 53
    tribes, and they put down their needs of funding that they
    need. Currently, that need would be $20 million. So the $2.2
    million is far below the $20 million that is needed.
        Senator Inouye. With that, I would like to thank all of you
    for your testimony today. It has been extremely helpful. As I
    indicated earlier, the record will be kept open until May 31.
    If you have any addendums or corrections to make, please submit
    them to the committee.
        With that the hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 12:08 p.m., the committee was adjourned, to
    reconvene at the call of the Chair.]

    =======================================================================

                                A P P E N D I X

                                  ----------

                  Additional Material Submitted for the Record

    =======================================================================

       Prepared Statement of Hon. Gordon Smith, U.S. Senator from Oregon

        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank our witnesses for
    testifying today on the Native American Fish and Wildlife Resources
    Management Act of 2004. I hope today's hearing will further add to the
    discussion of self-determination and self-governance.
        Effective development and poverty alleviation often hinges on
    improved tribal control. Empowering tribes with culturally appropriate
    means to enhance and maximize tribal capability and capacity in
    managing fish and wildlife resources is in the interest of all
    Americans. I am committed to supporting the economic development of
    Native communities through such economic opportunities as natural
    resource development and the conservation and management of fish and
    wildlife resources.
        Tribes have a close relationship with fish and wildlife that goes
    much further than the Federal stewardship. Indian people must live
    with- the consequences of their action or inaction. This intimacy has
    built strong cultural and traditional ties to fish and wildlife that
    have existed for thousands of years. Thus, tribes are much better able
    to manage their resources.
        This legislation is an excellent step toward decentralization of
    Federal control to tribal management. The National Indian Forests
    Resource Management Act [NIFRMA] of 1990 is an excellent precedent to
    the benefits of such decentralization. Tribes today manage their own
    forests at such an innovative and sustainable level that many are
    entering into stewardship agreements to help manage our national
    forests with the U.S. Forest Service.
        Tribes have only been able to develop such expertise in managing
    their resources with the help of such pioneering legislation as NIFRMA.
    Today's hearing will provide insight into Native American Fish and
    Wildlife Resource Management Act of 2004 as another excellent piece of
    legislation toward self-determination and economic opportunity for
    Native Americans.
        Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing and I most
    interested in today's testimonies. I look forward to working with
    tribal leaders, administrators, and other stakeholders in achieving a
    better management of Native American fish and wildlife resources. Thank
    you.

                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of Ervin Carlson, President InterTribal Bison
                                  Cooperative

        Good Morning, Honorable members of the Senate Committee on Indian
    Affairs. My name is Ervin Carlson and I am the president of the
    InterTribal Bison Cooperative [ITBC], a nonprofit organization
    comprised of 53 federally recognized tribes across 18 States of the
    United States. I am honored to present this testimony on behalf of the
    ITBC member tribes in support of passage of S. 2301. ITBC commends this
    committee's efforts to finally acknowledge and reaffirm the special
    relationship that exists between Native Americans and the fish and
    wildlife of this country. Native Americans have long believed they
    exist as co-owners of this earth with fish and wildlife. S. 2301
    provides Native Americans an opportunity to develop the capacity and
    access the resources to protect, preserve and enhance fish and wildlife
    resources including buffalo. While ITBC strongly supports and endorses
    S. 2301, as it applies to all fish and wildlife resources, my following
    remarks are specific to buffalo as ITBC's primary objective is to
    assist tribes with restoring and enhancing buffalo on Indian lands.
        Historians estimate that approximately 30 to 80 million Buffalo
    thrived on the great plains of the United States for many centuries
    before they were hunted by the non-Indian to near extinction in the
    1800's. Native Americans of the Great Plains thrived on the abundant
    buffalo prior to being relocated and restricted to Indian reservations.
    For many generations, buffalo insured the survival of Native Americans
    of the Great Plains. Naturally, this co-existence of Native Americans
    and buffalo on the Great Plains resulted in the longstanding spiritual
    and cultural connection between Native Americans and buffalo. Buffalo
    provided Native Americans with food, shelter, clothing and essential
    tools and insured the continuance of their subsistence way of life
    resulting in a self sufficient existence that was devastated along with
    the destruction of the buffalo herds. The lifestyle of the Tribes,
    dominated by interaction with the natural world, was profoundly
    impacted by the needless loss of the buffalo that most Tribes still
    consider to be a holocaust.
        While Native Americans of the Great Plains have been forced away
    from their customary subsistence lifestyle, their profound respect for
    buffalo remains. Buffalo remain an integral component of the cultural
    and religious beliefs and ceremonies of Native Americans.
        1 The passage of time has not diminished the spiritual and cultural
    connection between Native Americans and buffalo and a strong desire
    exists among Native Americans to repopulate Indian lands with healthy
    buffalo.
        In 1992, seven tribes, committed to preserving the sacred
    relationship between buffalo and Native Americans established the ITBC
    as an effort to restore buffalo to Indian lands. ITBC focused its
    restoration efforts on reservation lands that often did not sustain
    other economic or agricultural efforts. Lands that were unproductive
    for farming or raising livestock were and still are suitable for
    buffalo. ITBC began actively restoring buffalo to Indian lands upon the
    receipt of limited grant funding from the Department of the Interior.
    The organization began with the 7 founding tribes and approximately
    1,500 animals. Today, 53 tribes have joined ITBC, 35 of them have
    buffalo herds of various sizes with a total of approximately 15,000
    animals. However, the restoration efforts remain in infancy stages, as
    the buffalo herds have not yet developed to a degree to overcome the
    loss to the tribal cultures, as many herds are comprised of very few
    animals and many herds remain vulnerable due to limited resources for
    proper management.
        ITBC's primary focus remains on the restoration of buffalo to those
    Indian reservation lands that can sustain them to reestablish the
    sacred relationship between tribes and buffalo. Although ITBC has been
    successful in its 10 years of existence with restoring buffalo in
    limited numbers to some Indian lands, many other tribes desire the
    means to establish sound buffalo herds, but lack the resources to
    fulfill that desire.
        Many ITBC member tribes desire to raise buffalo only as a spiritual
    and cultural effort. These tribes wish to cultivate their religious and
    spiritual connections to the buffalo and are not interested in
    commercial marketing of the buffalo for economic development efforts.
    However, some of these tribes are interested in the harvest of buffalo
    only for the purpose of feeding tribal members. Therefore, while ITBC's
    restoration efforts remain paramount, numerous ITBC member tribes that
    have maintained viable buffalo herds are now interested in developing
    the means to provide buffalo to Native American populations as a
    healthy food source.
        Native Americans currently suffer from the highest rates of Type 2
    diabetes and they also suffer at extreme rates from cardio vascular and
    various other diet-related diseases. Studies indicate that Type 2
    diabetes commonly emerges when a population undergoes radical diet
    changes. Native Americans have been forced to abandon traditional diets
    rich in wild game, buffalo, and plants. Based on current data, it is
    safe to assume that disease rates of Native Americans are directly
    impacted by a genetic inability to effectively metabolize modern foods.
    Range fed buffalo meat is low in fat and cholesterol and is compatible
    to the genetics of Indian people. ITBC strives to develop an
    educational initiative to reintroduce buffalo into the diets of Native
    Americans to combat the high rates of diet-related diseases.
        Additionally, ITBC strives to develop processes to facilitate
    providing tribally raised range-fed buffalo to Native Americans
    dependent on Federal food distribution programs. Currently, buffalo
    meat provided to Native Americans living on Indian reservations is
    often not natural range fed buffalo but grain-fed buffalo raised by
    non-Indians. Grain feeding buffalo compromises the health benefits of
    the buffalo food products. Without adequate funding, ITBC cannot insure
    that Native American populations are provided range fed buffalo
    produced by Native American tribes.
        In addition to buffalo restoration and providing range-fed buffalo
    to Native American populations as a healthy food source, some ITBC
    member tribes are interested in utilizing buffalo for tribal economic
    development efforts. Thus, ITBC has now undertaken efforts to, insure
    that ITBC member tribes have opportunities to develop economically
    sustainable buffalo herds through the development of marketing
    initiatives. The current sizes of Tribal buffalo herds limit achieving
    economic sustainability of the herds and of the buffalo projects
    providing tribes with economic benefit. However, with adequate funding
    to develop sustainable herds, commercial marketing of buffalo remains
    an important goal for many ITBC member tribes.
        Since its inception in 1992, ITBC has participated in the
    longstanding debates of the Greater Yellowstone Inter-Agency
    Brucellosis Committee [GYIBC], an organization established to address
    the risk of Yellowstone National Park buffalo transmitting brucellosis
    to livestock. Yellowstone National Park buffalo possess pure bison
    bison genus genetics, unlike other North American strains that indicate
    cross-breeding with cattle. ITBC desires to transfer excess Yellowstone
    buffalo to tribal lands as part of ITBC's restoration efforts. However,
    Yellowstone buffalo have been determined to be at risk of brucellosis
    and the current policy of the GYIBC has been to kill buffalo that
    wander out of the Yellowstone Park for feeding purposes.
        ITBC has recently obtained a non-voting seat on the GYIBC with the
    intention of supporting alternatives to address the Yellowstone buffalo
    brucellosis concern including the development of more effective
    vaccinations and quarantine facilities for testing and treatment. ITBC
    remains hopeful that Yellowstone buffalo, upon successful treatment to
    diminish brucellosis concerns, may be transferred to tribal lands.
        ITBC supports the passage of Federal legislation that acknowledges
    the significant relationship between Native Americans and the fish and
    wildlife resources located on Indian lands. Native Americans co-existed
    with fish and wildlife in this country for many centuries. The rights
    of tribes to continue with hunting, fishing, and gathering wildlife
    resources has been recognized and guaranteed in treaties between tribes
    and the United States. S. 2301 will acknowledge the inherent sovereign
    authority of tribes to manage fish and wildlife resources within their
    respective jurisdictions and provide tribes with the means to develop
    and achieve meaningful management objectives.
        Legislation specifically authorizing tribes to manage fish and
    wildlife resources is consistent with the promotion of tribal self-
    determination. Additionally, ITBC believes S. 2301 will foster the
    sound management of tribal fish and wildlife resources that in turn
    will have a positive effect on tribal economies. S. 2301 solidifies the
    trust duty of the United States to insure proper management of tribal
    fish and wildlife resources.
        S. 2301 will provide critical funding to allow Native American
    tribes to investigate and inventory fish and wildlife resources and
    then to develop the capacity to effectively manage those resources.
    Upon proper identification of resources, tribes will be empowered to
    address the protection, conservation and enhancement of fish and
    wildlife. Presently, many tribes have not developed regulatory schemes
    for their fish and wildlife resources, such as buffalo, and do not have
    the trained personnel to best protect these resources. S. 2301 will
    allow tribes to develop effective management plans that will maximize
    the production of fish and wildlife, including buffalo, to better--meet
    tribal subsistence, ceremonial, recreational and commercial needs.
    Additionally, S. 2301 will create employment opportunities for Tribal
    members in wildlife management positions.
        S. 2301 also establishes a framework for the long-range goal of
    some ITBC member tribes to commercially market buffalo meat through the
    authority to develop certification standards and marketing initiatives.
    ITBC member tribes have been frustrated with the inability to
    coordinate with the Secretary of Agriculture to furnish tribally
    produced range-fed buffalo to the Food Distribution Program for Indian
    reservations. S. 2301 would allow ITBC member tribes to develop an
    alternative tribally controlled program to distribute natural range fed
    buffalo to Native American populations. Additionally, S. 2301 requires
    the Secretary of Agriculture to consult with tribes to allow tribes
    meaningful participation in USDA programs and improve the diet related
    health conditions of Indian people.
        Finally, S. 2301 would allow ITBC and its member tribes the
    resources to offer meaningful alternatives to the needless killing of
    Yellowstone Area buffalo.
        Passage of S. 2301 will insure that the critical efforts of ITBC to
    restore buffalo to Indian lands will continue. Currently, ITBC has been
    funded only by yearly grants with no assurance of continuous funding.
    Although ITBC has made significant and admirable progress to restore
    buffalo to Indian lands, the herds remain in stages of infancy and
    consistent and adequate funding is critical to continue with
    restoration efforts. S. 2301 will allow Tribes to achieve the goal of
    providing healthy range-fed buffalo to American Indian populations to
    combat diet related diseases. Most importantly, S. 2301 will allow
    Tribes to restore and manage buffalo herds on their Tribal lands, in a
    manner that is compatible with the economic goals and the spiritual and
    cultural beliefs of the tribes.
        ITBC believes this legislative effort is long overdue and strongly
    urges passage.

                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of Randy Mayo, First Chief, Stevens Village IRA
                                    Council

        Chairman Inouye, members of the committee honored guests, thank you
    for this opportunity to testify before you during the oversight hearing
    on S. 2301, a discussion draft bill that would improve the management
    of Native American fish and wildlife and gathering, and for other
    purposes. I am honored by this invitation to present oral testimony to
    the committee. Our written testimony has already been submitted by our
    tribal natural resource director, Dewey Schwalenberg seated here to my
    right. I speak today in support of the this bill in behalf of my 215
    tribal members and for the other community residents of Stevens Village
    who stand to benefit from the resource management and protection that
    this bill will provide to my community. Stevens Village is located 90
    air miles North of Fairbanks, AK on the North bank of the Yukon River.
    There are 30 households in the village and 90 residents. Most are
    Tribal members and share-holders in the Dinyee Native Village
    Corporation. I am the vice president of the Dinyee Corporation. The
    remainder of the tribal members reside in Fairbanks or other
    communities because they need to have work which is difficult to find
    in the village. Many of our members would like to live in the village
    and most do use fish, wildlife, and forestry resources from our
    traditional lands during certain seasons of the year. There are no
    roads to Stevens Village. Transportation is by small plane, by boat up
    the Yukon River from the Yukon River Bridge on the Dalton Highway 27
    miles down stream from the village or by snow machine or dog sled to
    the Bridge in the winter. Barges come up the River twice a year to
    deliver fuel and construction materials.
        Air freight for personal goods to the village is 45 cents per
    pound. None of the houses have sewer and water but we do have treated
    water and sewer to the school and water plant. The school has 13
    students from pre-school to 12th grade. The Council is the largest
    employer in the village and we have 7 full-time workers and 12-15
    seasonal workers. The tribal Lands and natural resource program employs
    most of our workers for fisheries, wildlife, forestry, and
    environmental projects. Without the resource program the community
    would have little employment. Funding for these programs have been
    challenging to maintain. Periodic grants have kept the program going
    for the past 6 years but permanent funding is necessary, soon or we
    will loose this portion of our economy. Our people are very much
    dependant upon the Salmon that comes up-river in the summer and on
    moose that live around the village. The moose population is at a very
    low level and we have taken steps to begin raising buffalo to
    supplement our meat supply.
        To provide the technical comments on the bill I will ask Mr.
    Schwalenberg to use the rest of our time to highlight our technical
    testimony.

                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of Ira New Breast, Executive Director, Native
                       American Fish and Wildlife Society

        Mr. Chairman, Vice Chairman and distinguished committee members:
        My name is Ira New Breast. I am the executive director of the
    Native American Fish and Wildlife Society and an enrolled member of the
    Blackfeet Tribe of Montana. I would like to respectfully thank you for
    the opportunity to present testimony to the Senate Committee on Indian
    Affairs on the development of the ``Native American Fish and Wildlife
    Management Act of 2004.'' I am grateful that the discussion draft Bill
    has been presented to tribes, tribal organizations and others for
    comments and appreciate this committee's willingness to listen to and
    work with such entities to make this legislation the best that it can
    be.
        The society is a national non-profit organization, established in
    1982, whose mission is to assist Native American and Alaska Native
    Tribes with the conservation, protection and enhancement of their fish,
    wildlife, habitat and cultural resources. The Society strives to assist
    tribes in their development and implementation of sound laws,
    regulations, policies and practices that preserve and protect fish and
    wildlife resources, are consistent with and enhance cultural traditions
    and values and improve the general welfare of Indian peoples through
    fish and wildlife related educational activities.
        As a national organization the Society has a unique national
    perspective, all tribes have distinctive perspectives and interests
    with a variety of fish and wildlife resources, diverse habitats and
    signature approaches to management. Our organization is not a
    substitute for important government-to-government relationships with
    tribes, we do offer forums in which Federal agencies can initiate
    outreach to that end. The Society does not act in representation or
    proxy of individual tribes. The Society does have mechanisms to
    facilitate astute tribal deliberation to planning, development and
    operational efforts surrounding fish and wildlife in Indian country.
        As an individual, I have 16 years experience working in the field
    managing fish and wildlife. For 12 of those years my work activities
    have included nearly all aspects of tribal fish and wildlife
    conservation management, they extend into administration, law
    enforcement, policy and regulatory development, fund raising, and local
    to national representation. My experience has led me to witness first-
    hand the in depth needs that exist and depend in order to support
    management by tribes for their fish and wildlife resource. From this
    grassroots perspective I recall the history of the proposed legislation
    and continue to hope for the original purpose and intent.
        While development of the Native American Fish and Wildlife
    Resources Management Act is a strong statement of the Federal
    Government's commitment to Indian resources, tribes need the Federal
    Government to reinforce their management capabilities by and through a
    renewed and clarified commitment to tribal fish and wildlife resources,
    further defining the application of trust responsibility in the arena
    of Tribal fish and wildlife relationships. Funding cuts, reductions in
    programs and inequities or inconsistencies in budgeting and support
    perpetuates a lukewarm and uncertain commitment by the Federal
    Government and cause difficulties for tribes in properly managing
    natural resources. General Federal conservation and management programs
    targeting resource protection on a broader, national scale do not
    provide a consistent support mechanism upon which strong and effective
    tribal conservation and management programs can be built. Tribes need
    legislation to help resource management on Indian lands. Without
    specific devotion to the fundamental management of Indian resources,
    shortfalls and gaps will continue and resources will suffer.
        The Society can attempt to provide its perspective on the
    challenges facing tribes as they strive to develop and sustain fish and
    wildlife management programs on tribal lands or for tribal resources.
    If legislation is to effectively respond to the challenges, the bill as
    currently drafted needs to be narrowed and refined, identifying support
    mechanisms for on-the-ground management and conservation of fish and
    wildlife in Indian country. The bill needs to focus on fundamental fish
    and wildlife conservation management and should not be diverted for
    other purposes. While support of special and specific interests are
    valid in certain areas of Indian country, S. 2301 attempts to achieve
    too much and should not dilute the basic unmet needs that exist for
    many Indian tribes. Legislation and funding for core tribal fish and
    wildlife management programs should be stabilized, made equitable and
    consistent between tribes, and not be provided on a sporadic,
    competitive basis. In anticipation of objections to the success of the
    S. 2301, strategic foresight may prudently include a streamline
    structure consistent with the original intent, theme and title of this
    legislation.
        In the event that the legislation is enacted, S. 2301 does not
    identify funding sources and will likely go unfunded, distinctive
    special issues or needs may find a higher degree of success on an
    individual basis or practical channel. Special issues and needs may
    likely be best effective and given attention in a bill suited to the
    particular issues or needs. Unique interests should be addressed, but
    should be addressed in regards and in deference to affected
    representatives and unmet needs that do not exist for other tribes.
    Tribes must be afforded equitable opportunity reflected by their unique
    circumstances across the nation, as each tribe has some level of unmet
    resource management needs. Resource needs that exceed fundamental fish
    and wildlife conservation management needs (like the need for
    enforcement officers, scientific capacity or operational assets) may be
    dealt with on an alternative basis.
        The Society is encouraged by the emphasis on resource education as
    it is consistent with the priorities of the Society. This bill will
    take a leap forward in supporting sorely needed educational programs in
    tribal fish and wildlife management. it may be possible to combine some
    of the education provisions and to review the programs relative to
    current, similar programs.
        Fundamental tribal fish and wildlife conservation management should
    be supported and funded by the Federal Government on a permanent, non-
    exclusive and equitable basis, to secure adequate resources, and truly
    make this a success. Over the years, conservation and management
    programs for States and U.S. territories, funded by Federal dollars, do
    not translate into conservation and management benefits for Indian
    country. This legislation will demonstrate for tribes equity in their
    part to manage vital natural resources that benefit the American
    people. We look forward to working with the committee to identify this
    resolve and to implement or reinforce programs for the benefit of
    tribal natural resources. Thank You.

      Prepared Statement of Olney Patt, Jr., Executive Director, Columbia
                       River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission

        Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, on behalf of the Columbia
    River treaty tribes, I would like to thank you for this opportunity to
    provide testimony on the Native American Fish and Wildlife Resources
    Management Act of 2004. My name is Olney Patt, Jr. and I am the
    executive director of the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission.
    The Commission was formed by resolution of the Nez Perce Tribe, the
    Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, the
    Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon and the
    Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation for the purpose of
    coordinating fishery management policy and providing technical
    expertise essential for the protection of the tribes' treaty-protected
    fish resources. Both independently and through their Commission
    process, the Columbia River treaty tribes have worked cooperatively,
    and with some success, with the States and Federal agencies, as well as
    with private landowners, to restore populations of the shared salmon
    resource. The Columbia River treaty tribes see this bill as opportunity
    to provide a framework for tribes to deal with specific on-reservation
    resource management issues as well as to provide a national framework
    that can allow tribes, states and the Federal Government to also
    successfully address regional management issues where there are shared
    natural resources.
        I want to note that I will focus on a couple of key elements of
    this bill in my testimony today and that I will supplement the record
    with additional written testimony within a few weeks.
        Since 1977, our Commission has contracted with the BIA under the
    Indian Self-Determination Act (P.L. 93-638) to provide technical
    expertise essential for the protection of the tribes' treaty-protected
    fish resources. Through a governing body of leaders from four tribes
    working together to protect their treaty fishing rights and a staff of
    biologists, hydrologists, law enforcement personnel, and other experts
    advising tribal policymakers, this Commission has demonstrated that
    tribes are able to coordinate with a multitude of parties on a
    regional, national, and international level. What we have learned
    during the history of the Commission is that through better regional
    coordination and cooperation, we can spend more time working with state
    and Federal land water mangers on developing shared resource management
    strategies and less time in court.
        Since the tribes formed the Commission, we have seen the
    development and implementation of a cooperative harvest management plan
    for the Columbia River. In the late 1960's and through the 1970's, the
    tribes spent much time in court debating how the tribes and states
    should share the conservation burden of the shared salmon resource. By
    the late 1980's, the tribes and states had come to an agreement on a
    harvest plan for co-management of this resource, with some agreement on
    production programs. This plan, though currently under revision, has
    largely replaced the annual litigation over the conservation and
    harvest management of the shared salmon resource that originates in the
    Columbia River.
        On an international scale, in the early 1980's we witnessed a
    dangerous coastwide decline in Chinook salmon stocks from southeast
    Alaska, through British Columbia, and throughout the Pacific Northwest.
    The need to deal with this conservation crisis helped to push the
    United States and Canada to reach an agreement on the Pacific Salmon
    Treaty in 1985. Under the Treaty, there is now a management structure
    through which the parties can share technical information and develop
    strategies to deal with management problems concerning the shared
    salmon resource. The Columbia River treaty tribes, along with the
    western Washington treaty fishing tribes, were significant participants
    in the negotiation of that Treaty and continue to play a significant
    role in its implementation.
        Now each of the examples I've outlined deal with complex, multi-
    jurisdictional management issues. More often than not, we would
    anticipate that individual tribes would use the management planning and
    resource inventory structure outlined in this bill to address on-
    reservation resource management issues. At the same time, this resource
    inventory and management planning process may have an application for
    shared resources off reservation, such as salmon. In either case
    though, this bill acknowledges the importance of the tribes to
    participate in the resource planning and management of resources they
    reserved to themselves through the treaty process with the United
    States, or that have been recognized through executive orders,
    statutes, judicial decrees, or through other methods. Just as
    importantly, the structure and process laid out in the bill can help to
    prevent surprises to resource users on the a reservation or,
    particularly in the case of shared resources that may be taken by
    tribal members off-reservation, the planning process can help to
    prevent surprises for non-tribal members off-reservation.
        This bill, by specifically allowing tribes to opt-in to the
    resource inventory and planning process, recognizes that the needs of
    individual tribes differ within regions and across the continent. This
    bill does not force any tribe to undertake the resource inventory and
    management planning process provided in this bill. Undertaking a
    resource inventory and survey would only occur at the request of a
    tribe, the development of a resource management plan would then follow
    at a pace set by each individual tribe. Nor would this bill require any
    tribe to abandon a current management plan, co-management agreements,
    or any other working resource management plan. It does offer the
    promise of a structure and the resources that can be utilized by all
    tribes, at their option, in developing new plans or in revising old
    management plans.
        I would like to note an important element in this bill: Section 202
    of the bill provides a framework to increase the educational
    opportunities for tribal members to gain the knowledge and training
    necessary to manage tribal resources. It also provides an opportunity
    for tribes to coordinate and cooperate with other tribes, with
    universities and with others as appropriate on technical and scientific
    issues associated with resource management.
        We see great promise, both for tribes and for natural resource
    management, in the development of tribal cooperative research units at
    universities across the country. Within the Columbia River basin, this
    Commission, working with its member tribes, identified a critical
    regional need for additional facilities to handle genetics work
    associated with regional salmon restoration activities. On behalf of
    its member tribes, the Commission entered into a Memorandum of
    Agreement with the University of Idaho to site these facilities at the
    University's aquaculture research facility. Building upon that
    agreement, and acknowledging the desire of other tribes in the basin to
    participate in the opportunities offered by our arrangement with the
    University, we have worked with the University to outline a memorandum
    to establish a cooperative research unit that other tribes can join as
    well.
        The formation of that tribal cooperative research unit with the
    University of Idaho provides several benefits: It allows the tribes' to
    have their own staff driving the research agenda and working on
    resource issues of importance to the tribe; it offers tribal staff the
    opportunity to reach out to the non-tribal community through teaching
    assignments at the University; and it provides a place for tribal
    members attending the University to take on undergraduate or graduate
    degree research work. All of this would be accomplished in a
    cooperative, coordinated research forum that could include other State
    or Federal researchers, as the tribes might determine is appropriate. I
    would note that it is important that we insure that the opportunities
    laid out for tribal students in this section of the bill, especially as
    to the development of the cooperative research unit system, are
    integrated with the opportunities and work of the Indian College
    System.
        I also want to touch upon another section of the bill dealing with
    hatchery programs. As we've learned in the Pacific Northwest,
    hatcheries can be a part of the problem--but can also be a significant
    part of the solution--in ensuring the sustainability of a fishery
    resource. It all depends upon how the goals and objectives of a
    hatchery program are reached by a tribe or in some situations, by a
    tribe in coordination with other co-managers. The section of the bill
    that provides for assistance to the tribal hatchery programs is geared
    to dealing with both strictly on-reservation tribal hatchery program
    activities as well as situations where tribal hatchery programs may be
    located at least partially off-reservation. In addition, it provides an
    opportunity for a tribe, or tribes, to enter into cooperative
    agreements with Federal agencies to either co-manage a hatchery program
    or takeover the management of a hatchery program. In either case, we
    would anticipate that funding for such hatchery management or co-
    management programs would originate initially with the cooperating
    agency, either the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the National
    Marine Fisheries Service, and not originate within the programmatic
    budget of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. We could have already utilized
    these provisions within the Columbia River basin to enter into mutually
    beneficial cooperative programs but were hampered by the Federal
    agency's lack of Congressional authority to do so. This section of the
    bill would allow us to take advantage of such a cooperative venture in
    the future.
        For the reasons I've laid out in my testimony today, the Columbia
    River treaty tribes support the general concepts and opportunities
    provided in language of the Native American Fish and Wildlife Resources
    Management Act of 2004. We would welcome the opportunity to work with
    you, other members of the committee and with your staff to fine tune
    the bill to ensure that it meets the needs of all of the tribes within
    the United States and to ensure its passage during this Congress.

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3499.001

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3499.002

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3499.003

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3499.004

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3499.005

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3499.006

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3499.007

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3499.008

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3499.009

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3499.010

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3499.011

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3499.012

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3499.013

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3499.014

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3499.015

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3499.016

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3499.017

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3499.018

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3499.019

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3499.020

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3499.021

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3499.022

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3499.023

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3499.024

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3499.025

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3499.026

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3499.027

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3499.028

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3499.029

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3499.030

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3499.031

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3499.032

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3499.033

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3499.034

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3499.035

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3499.036

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3499.037

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3499.038

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3499.039

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3499.040

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3499.041

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3499.042

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3499.043

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3499.044

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3499.045

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3499.046

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3499.047