Part 4 of 4

We currently have a proposal introduced by the Western Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Council (Council) that should be of interest to all our people.  This is to amend the existing  50 mile limit around the islands of American Samoa to allow the long-line fishing vessels to fish closer to the islands because of the economic hardships they allege?  The amendment has caused controversy between alia vessel owners and long-line vessel owners.  Does this amendment affect Treaty rights?  In my opinion, it certainly does.  

Any move by a NOAA federal agency whether to add, amend, or take away regulations affecting the marine waters and submerged lands we ceded always triggers treaty right concerns. It should always do so in our minds so long as we do not have a permanent political status in place that defines in detail the protections we are owed over these things.  

Did I say “owed”? Yes, because we already paid the high, high price of ceding sovereignty over all we had an interest in: land, water, resources in exchange for the U.S. protecting these things for our benefit and allowing us to continue to access them, live on them, and practice our culture.  When federal regulatory control takes over for the benefit of the larger U.S. population, and allows people not covered under the treaty to help themselves to these resources, are we not in fact allowing the U.S. Government to “whittle” away at our resources that they promised to protect under our treaties? 

When I  attended the public hearings on the amendment, I stood up to give my support on behalf of  the alia boat owners and their way of fishing which I said something like: .. they were the backbone of these islands and had helped these islands survive for hundreds of years and their way of life and fishing were protected under our treaties of cessions.  I heard the  fears of the  alia fishermen of the competition they faced if the long-liners were allowed to fish closer to the islands where they fished.   However, I now have to admit that I would be inconsistent if I did not recognize that all persons who descend from the inhabitants of the islands at the time of ratification of the Treaties are protected in their right of access to fish our waters for their business or subsistence, regardless of the type of vessel they use. 

It is more important to me that the people covered under the treaties are protected in their right of continued access to their fishing grounds, to the exclusion of those not covered.   This position is more consistent with our treaties in my opinion.  The other concerns such as the amount of the catch that the “qualified” long-liners take so that our alia fishing industry does not suffer collapse, I would leave to the experts.

The position I assert of course means limiting the long-liners who can fish within the amended area to those that are owned (or some percentage owned) by descendants of persons who inhabited these islands at the time the treaties were ratified or signed.  Those long-liners not owned under such guidelines simply need to remain outside of the 50 mile limit.  This is my best thought of a compromise that will surely enrage those who do not qualify.  They will probably insist that they have a right to fish as long-liners within the 50 mile buffer, if it changes, because this is a “U.S. Territory” and they are U.S. citizens.  The problem is, these waters are still under treaty protections guarantees that have not yet been realized.  We have no  permanent political status model that defines the protected interests of  the people in its marine waters .  

Until then, the treaty protections in favor of the people covered under these treaties outweighs any interests of a non-treatied person in my opinion.  Where are the successors to the Treaty Chiefs that can assert our treaty protections to the Western Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Council before they decide by the June deadline?  They could be saying to the Council no change to the buffer zone.  Or they could say only those long-liners that are owned by those covered under the treaties should be allowed.  But, not vessels that do not qualify.  To allow unqualified long-liners access and not put up a treaty fight, will mean in my opinion, that we are not valuing the high price of sovereignty our forefathers paid. 

The role of our Governor and fono, in my opinion, could and should be supportive of any position the successors to the Treaty chiefs take concerning amending the present  50 mile buffer.  Our Governor and fono, as agents of the U.S. when it comes to asserting treaty rights against the U.S., are limited in what they can do.  However, they can make known to NOAA, DOI and other federal agencies their agreement with positions taken by the successors to the Treaty Chiefs.  If  like me,  you believe  some of the NOAA regulatory controls over our marine waters and resources that I mention in my OP ED series are harming us more than they are helping us, approach the successors to the Treaty Chiefs to do something about it. 

Consider asking them to collectively take a position and weigh in on the decision before the Western Pacific Regional Fisheries Council before the June deadline.  Consider asking them to help us also scale back the American Samoa National Marine Sanctuary, which was expanded without the consultation and approval of our successor Treaty Chiefs,  and took more than was needed for conservation, and in disregard of our local government capacity to implement conservation measures.  The federal government will not assert our treaty rights to protection over these things or to a permanent political status.  We must do it ourselves.  The voice we need activated is that of the successors to our Treaty Chiefs. 

I am asking them myself, but, I am only one voice.  I encourage you readers to join me in doing the same.  Sovereignty was a high price paid by our Treaty forefathers, and it is up to us  the people to ensure we receive the protections our Treaty forefathers wanted us to have.  

If you have any questions concerning my 4 part  OP ED series or would like to discuss it with me I can be reached at PH 699-6895.