Misguided attempts to “conserve wild salmon” are an attack on tribal sovereignty and come at a huge cost to Indigenous culture and livelihoods.
The Wild Fish Conservancy (WFC) has petitioned the federal government to list Gulf of Alaska Chinook salmon under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). To be clear, this organization does not represent the interests of Indigenous nations in Alaska or in Washington, and it has no place interfering with fisheries management.
An ESA listing would shift management of the fishery from the state of Alaska to the federal government and could lead to significant harm to Alaska’s fishing communities. WFC is attempting to bypass the state’s existing process, which brings together stakeholders and managers to make wise use decisions about natural resources management.
Our federal trustee, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), failed to follow its own tribal consultation policy when it accepted WFC’s petition to list this population under the ESA.
The petition was flawed to begin with. NOAA acknowledged it contained “numerous factual errors, omissions, incomplete references, and unsupported assertions and conclusions within the petition.”
In addition to unsupported assertions of overharvest, the petition included a list of generalized environmental threats that are common to salmon coastwide. It also failed to provide a comprehensive review of the status of Gulf of Alaska Chinook or an overview of Alaska’s sustainable management of these stocks.
This is not the first time that WFC has inserted itself into fisheries management.
“The Wild Fish Conservancy has a history of frivolous litigation,” said Richard Chalyee Éesh Peterson, president of the Central Council of the Tlingit & Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska. “Their attacks have impacted tribes in Washington and Oregon, taken time and resources away from important conservation and restoration efforts, and attempt to criminalize our traditional ways of life, as well as challenge tribal sovereignty and treaty rights. Their petition is a distraction from the real problems before us. Trawling and subsequent bycatch, climate change, and the destruction of habitat must be at the forefront of these conversations.”
In 2014, WFC sued to force an end to Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife’s steelhead hatcheries. A year later, the Upper Skagit Indian Tribe harvested the last returns from that program.
“Our ancestors gave up everything so that we could continue to fish in our traditional areas,” said Scott Schuyler, natural resources director for the Upper Skagit Indian Tribe, at the time. “Without hatchery production, we can’t have a meaningful fishery.”
Since then, WFC has continued to file lawsuits attacking hatchery programs in western Washington and along the Columbia River. Litigation, not conservation, is their business plan. They seek donations under the guise of conserving salmon, but where does that money go except to file more lawsuits?
An ESA listing of Gulf of Alaska Chinook salmon would disproportionately harm the Tlingit & Haida communities, whose purse seine fisheries already are being squeezed out by commercial and sport fisheries.
Tlingit & Haida have asked the federal government to incorporate their traditional ecological knowledge into the review process for an ESA listing.
“Our traditional knowledge provides a long-term perspective on ecological changes, species behavior, and environmental health that is invaluable for informing sustainable management practices,” Peterson said.
Similarly, NWIFC tribes have since time immemorial been the stewards of the salmon that originate or pass through our homelands. Our stewardship extends throughout their migratory range to ensure their health and sustainability.
Chinook salmon in our waters are affected by sport and commercial salmon fisheries in southeast Alaska, so an ESA listing would impact our treaty resources too. The listing would affect Indigenous economies, food sovereignty and traditional ways of life from the Aleutian Islands to the Columbia Basin.
Here in Washington, our treaty rights are protected by the Boldt decision in U.S. v. Washington. Maybe that’s why the WFC is now trying to interfere with fisheries in Alaska.
Their misguided petition sounds well-meaning. The purpose of the Endangered Species Act, after all, is to protect and conserve imperiled species. However, the petition does not meet the conservation standard of distinguishing between species that are healthy and those at risk of becoming imperiled.
As Peterson said, this petition is a distraction from the real issues that need attention, such as climate change and habitat destruction. That is where we need to focus our efforts.
— Ed Johnstone is the chairman for the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission.
