Home

January 15, 1997

TRIBES SIMPLY SAYING: IMPLEMENT MASS MARKING PROPERLY

It is unfortunate the Everett Herald didn't take the time to adequately study the issue before printing its recent editorial "Mass marking is short-term solution to coho shortage" (Jan. 2, 1997). The Herald does its readers a great disservice by painting the tribes as fish greedy, noting their reluctance to allow the state to immediately mark its hatchery coho with an adipose fin clip. The stated purpose of the fin clip is to allow sport anglers to distinguish hatchery fish from distressed wild fish stocks, which we all agree need to be protected.

But your editorial tells only half the story. In truth, the tribes do not oppose mass marking or selective fisheries. Mass marking will eventually proceed; the tribes simply ask that the program be implemented properly.

There are several critical points that appear to have escaped your editorial writer. First, mass marking will not produce a coho surplus or even guarantee more sport fishing. Many factors, such as ocean survival, determine fishery levels. In fact, mass marking can have a negative impact on wild salmon stocks if too many wild coho caught in selective fisheries die after being hooked and released.

But what your readers should most understand is that the tribes' opposition to the state Department of Fish and Wildlife's current mass marking program is based on the potential impacts to an ongoing coast-wide coded wire tag program, a crucial salmon management tool that isn't even mentioned in your editorial.

The adipose fin clip that the state wishes to apply to its hatchery fish is already being used from Alaska to California to identify hatchery and wild fish that have had tiny coded wire tags inserted in their snouts as juveniles. When the tagged fish are recovered as adults, the tags provide fisheries managers information on the fish's origin, age, migration pattern and other data critical to fish management. Information gathered is used to develop models to predict run sizes, determine harvest rates and make other important management decisions. Continuation and maintenance of the program is necessary for proper management and required by the Pacific Salmon Treaty between the U.S. and Canada.

Without reliable data from the coast-wide coded wire tagging program, it would make it far more difficult to manage fisheries to protect individual stocks, forcing managers to set extremely conservative openings. It would also be impossible to evaluate the effects of selective fisheries on the very wild populations we are trying to protect.

Most of the coho produced in tribal and state hatcheries here are harvested by Canadians off the West Coast of Vancouver Island, so it is imperative that Canada agree to electronically sample its fish for coded wire tags. Under an agreement between the tribes and WDFW signed last May, the state agreed not to mark hatchery coho after Sept. 1 without the concurrence of all affected parties. At that point, the tribes were unwilling to concur because there was no assurance the coded wire tag program could be maintained given Canada's unwillingness at this time to electronically sample its fisheries. Canada has declined to sample its fish because of cost concerns and uncertainty that the detection equipment will work properly in Canadian fish processing facilities.

It was only after the state refused to honor its agreement with the tribes and resumed marking that the Tulalip Tribes were forced to seek a restraining order in federal court, not the Supreme Court, as your editorial mistakenly suggests. And based on all the information, not just half the story, Judge Barbara Rothstein agreed with the tribes and granted the order.

The Herald can better serve its readers and better reflect the cultural diversity of its coverage area by investing more time in its research before implying greed on the part of the tribes. Indeed, as many of your readers are aware, local sport fishers have benefitted directly from the Tulalip Tribes' cooperation with WDFW in providing a fishing opportunity for salmon on the Tulalip Reservation, targetting fish produced by the Tulalip Tribes. I hope that in the future the Herald will highlight such cooperative efforts that benefit all users of this important resource.

In the days that have followed Judge Rothstein's ruling, the tribes and state have been working in good faith to develop a plan that will not compromise the salmon resource. This plan will allow all affected fisheries management entities to participate in the program as required by federal court order.

Mass marking and selective fisheries are not about conserving salmon, they are about squeezing larger sport harvests of hatchery fish from mixed stock areas while minimizing impacts to wild fish. It's a laudable goal but costly if not achieved properly, and it does nothing to address the main causes of declining wild salmon stocks -- loss of spawning and rearing habitat.

Stanley G. Jones
Tulalip Tribal Chairman

Return to Tulalip News Releases