sign in sign up
<<
Home , Celilo Falls, Fort Colville, Kettle Falls, Sanpoil

Historical Distribution of Tribal Harvest in the Upper Columbia Basin Prior to Construction of /Grand Coulee Dams

Allan T. Scholz Department of Biology Eastern University Indian Fisheries

• Jesuit missionary Pierre-Jean DeSmet established missions in the Columbia Basin from 1840 – 1846. He wrote: – “As buffalo of the prairies and deer of the eastern woodlands furnish daily food for the inhabitants of those regions, so do these fish supply the wants of the western tribes. One may form some idea of the quantity of and other fish, by remarking that at the time Father Pierre-Jean they ascend the rivers, all the tribes inhabiting DeSmet (SJ) the shores choose a favorable location and not only do they find abundant nutriment during all the season, but, if diligent, they dry, and also pulverize and mix with oil a sufficient quantity for the rest of the year.” Columbia Plateau Indian Fisheries

• John Keast Lord (1866), British naturalist who helped to survey the NW boundary between the US and Canada in 1858 – 1860. – “Salmon is quite as essential to the Indians residing inland as grain to us, or banana and plantains to the residents of the tropics; gleaning the regular supply of fish, the Indian literally harvests and garners it as we reap John Keast “Jack” Lord wheat. It cannot be by mere chance that salmon are prompted, by instinct, to [swim] into the farthest mountains, fish that are fat and oily and best adapted to supply heat and the elements of nutrition.” Importance of Salmon in Diet

• Salmon constituted ~ 50 % of food consumed in annual diet of Indians. – G. A. Paige, Indian Agent, , WT on Sept. 19, 1866 wrote: “The Spokan’s draw at least 5/8 ths of their subsistence from the salmon fisheries of the Columbia and Spokane Rivers and their tributaries.” – C. W. King, Indian Agent, Fort Colville, WT, in 1870 wrote that while many Indians in the district “had taken up farming yet 4/5ths of their support is derived from their salmon fisheries.” (RKM 320) (RKM 1,125) Celilo Falls Fishery

• Celilo Falls was a mixed- stock interception fishery. • British naturalist, Jack Lord (1866), noted that Celilo Falls was “simply a hindrance to the salmon” and that “vast numbers escaped the redskins.”

Celilo Falls fishery. Images courtesy of CRITFC. ’s painting of Kettle Falls (1848) (Note the basket trap and how many salmon are in the painting.)

Lord (1866) further noted that the proof of this was the large number of salmon that were harvested at Kettle Falls. He stated, “I question if in the world is another spot where salmon are taken in greater abundance or with so little labor as at Kettle Falls.” (Little Falls) • Walker/Eells (1839—1847)

reported: (L to R) Elkanah Walker, Mary Walker, – 1000 Indians fished annually; Cushing Eells, Myra Eells. Little Falls Dam on Spokane River – Run timing: June 5—14 to was erected over Little Falls in 1911. August 5—11; – Harvest: 200—1,000 salmon/ day. Varied by year. • (22 July 1825). Indians “taking 700—800 salmon per day” at Little John Work Chinook salmon harvested below Falls. Fur trader Little Falls in 1938. Photo courtesy HBC of Christine LeBret. Spokane River (Little Falls) Cont.

• Lt. Charles N. Wilkes, explored Columbia Basin in 1842. – Reported that Lt. Johnson, on June 21, 1842, reported the Spokane River in vicinity of Little Falls was “pretty; its Lt. “U.S. Exploring waters . . .transparent. To judge from the Expedition” number of sheds of drying salmon, it must (1838 – 1842). abound with fish.” • L.P. Beach, cadastral surveyor, mapped the Spokane River in 1862. – “Little falls is a large salmon fishery. The Indians put up at least 250 tons of dried fish during the fishing season.” Spokane method of drying lamprey. Image courtesy of J. Ross Spokane /Little Spokane Confluence

• David Douglas, August 4 1826: – “The natives constructed a barrier across the Little Spokane. . .After the traps filled with salmon the Indians would spear them. Seventeen hundred D. Douglas L. Stone salmon were taken this day, now to o’clock. How many may still be in the Fish weir similar to that on LSR snare I do not know.” ! • Livingstone Stone, USFC, 1883: – Hired L.C. Gilliam who informed Stone that (in 1882) 40,000 – 50,000 salmon were observed on drying racks on Little Spokane. – In 1883, estimated harvest after September 1 was 2,000 – 4,000 salmon. Spokane/Little Spokane Confluence (Cont.)

• Ben Norman,1883: – “The site was a great fishing place. The Indians had traps across the main Spokane River and the Little Spokane and there were fish for everyone.” • Rev. P. Burnett: In early 1880’s about 150—185: – “Indians still maintained fish traps across both rivers. . . until the Indian teepees were and salmon traps were destroyed” in an effort to move the Indians onto the reservation. • George Heron, Deputy Sheriff, Stevens County, visited confluence most years from 1844—1892: – “During the summer from 100 – 1000 Indians camped on the flats by the rivers catching and drying salmon. . .The fish came into the traps in countless thousands and were speared by the Indians.” Spokane River (Spokane Falls) Lithograph of Spokane Falls (1855) • Lt. Grover, February 1854: by John Mix Stanley, Pacific RR Survey – Indians caught steelhead in a trap constructed below Spokane Falls and dried them on drying racks. • Scott (1968): – During spring and summer “Salmon congregated by the thousands below the falls.” • C. Gilbert & B. Evermann (1893): Spokane Falls circa 1888 – “The Spokane River, below the falls was formerly and important salmon stream containing large spawning beds.” Kettle Falls Fishery

• Father DeSmet (13 days Paul Kane’s oil painting of Kettle Falls July/Aug 1845): fishery in 1848. – 800 – 900 Indians; – 1,750 – 2,000 salmon/day; – His share = 346 lb/day. • Paul Kane (1848): – Ave. of 400, Max. of 1,700 salmon taken/day in Salmon Chief’s basket; – Spearsmen took 200/day Drying sheds for salmon at Kettle Falls each; fishery in 1848. – Salmon Chief allowed fish to escape upstream. • Jack Lord (1858—1860): – 300 salmon per day landed from one basket weighing 20 – 75 lbs each. Kettle Falls Fishery (Cont.) • Lt. C. Wilkes (1845): – 900 fish/day caught in basket traps. ! • Jacob Meyers (1869): – Main basket trap yield 1,000 – 1,500 fish/day. ! • Angus McDonald (1852 – 1872) stated that: “Salmon as heavy as 100 lbs” were caught at Kettle Falls and that “one basket has caught a thousand salmon in one day.” Salmon taken by Colville Tribal member at Kettle Falls fishery in late 1930’s. Kettle Falls Fishery (Cont.) • Above estimates indicate that baskets traps averaged of 1,071 salmon daily during 60 day peak of run (June 20 – August 20 = 64,620 total salmon. ! • Conservative estimate (does not count fish harvested from late August – October, or fish harvested by Indians who speared or dipnetted fish). ! • Indian populations estimated at 1000 individuals during peak of run. (Suggests considerable numbers of fish were taken by spearing or dipnetting them). So, would not surprise me if double (i.e., 129,240 salmon per year) Salmon harvested by Colville fisherman at Kettle Falls were harvested at Kettle Falls. In late 1930’s. Columbia Headwater Lakes

• Father DeSmet (1845) at Columbia and Windermere Lakes: – “I saw [salmon] pass in great numbers. . . These two lakes form an immense tomb for Columbia Lake, BC. they die in such numbers. . .to infect the whole surrounding atmosphere.” • Dr. James Hector (1859) 160 km below the Golden, BC lakes: – “Along the banks we saw a good many dead salmon. . .Afterwards we saw them all the way to the source of the Columbia at the two lakes.” • Bryant and Parkhurst (1950) at Golden: – In 1936 “Chinook salmon still ascended the above Golden, BC. . . All of [them] averaged 40 lbs. . .and 50 or 60 lb fish were frequently seen. The river under the bridge was packed tight with salmon. . . After spawning the shores were covered with dead fish.” Windermere Lake, BC Estimation of consumption Bomb Calorimeter • Craig & Hacker (1940): – Human diet = 2,000 calories per day; – Salmon fresh from ocean contain 1,000 calories/lb. – If 50% of Indian diet was salmon, then they must consume 1 lb/day (365 lbs/year) – Multiplied by Indian population (50,000) yielded estimate of Indian harvest (18.3 million lbs). • Gordon Hewes(1947): – Used ethnographic information about the relative importance of salmon to each tribe as a weighting factor to adjust up or down from 365 lbs. – Combined estimate for all Tribes = 22,274,500 lbs. Estimation of Consumption (Cont.) • Randall Schalk (1985): – Waste loss adjustment: Only 80 % of fish consumed (i.e., about 1.25 lbs needed to produce 1.0 lbs edible fish). – Migration calorie loss adjustment (salmon loose calories as they migrate upstream). If their flesh contains 1000 calories/lb as they enter the Columbia, by the time they reach the Spokane River it only contains about 660 calories per pound; so Indians living further upriver would have to eat more pounds of salmon than Indians living closer to the ocean to gain equivalent caloric intake. – Applying these adjustments, he estimated total Indian consumption was 41,754,800 lbs. Estimation of Consumption (Cont.)

Hudson’s Bay Company records of meat purchased at Kettle Falls: 1827 & 1829 — 1830. Food Purchased (lb) 1827 1829 1830 Salmon 16,050 10,480 18,180 Venison 1,797 1,025 2,554 Beaver (tails) 50 50 30 Ducks 210 330 310 Geese 510 75 165 Cranes 30 15 0 Dogs 120 90 0 Swans 15 0 0 Grouse 32 110 8 Trout/small fish 80 46 0 • Salmon accounted 84 % (in 1827) and 86 % (in both 1829 and 1830) of meat purchased at KF to feed 30 people (545, 349, and 606 lb/person in 1827, 1820 and 1830 respectively). Wet weights were estimated at 1030, 672, and 1167 lb/ person in 1827, 1829 and 1830 respectively [Ave = 956 lbs, i.e. similar to 978 lbs per capita estimated by Schalk (1985) for Indians at KF fishery]. Estimation of Consumption (Cont.) Estimates of aboriginal consumption by UCUT Tribes Tribe Population # lb./ Total lb. Population # lb./ Total lb. (Hewes) person consumed (Walker) person consumed C d’A 1,200 656 787,500 2,000 750 1,500,000 Colville 4,500 975 4,387,500 6,000 1,080 6,480,000 Kalispel 1,200 656 787,500 1,500 750 1,125,000 Kootenai 1,200 938 1,125,600 2,500 900 2,250,000 Spokane 1,400 963 1,348,200 2,500 1,080 2,700,000 Total UCUT 8,436300 14,055,000 CB Total 44,126,900 54,506,000 %of CB Tot 19.1 25.7 1 Includes: , Colville, Nespelem, Sinkiuse, , Methow, Peskwaus. • In above table # lb. / person accounted for the waste loss and migration distance loss adjustments. • Deward Walker (1985) estimated higher populations for each tribe than Hewes (1947). Boyd (1985) revised populations of indigenous peoples upward after an analysis of how disease affected the populations of each Tribe on the Plateau. Walker’s numbers were lower than Boyd’s. Estimate of number of salmon harvested by UCUT Tribes

• Number of salmon harvested was determined by using Craig and Hacker (1940), Bryant and Parkhurst (1950) and Fulton (1968, 1970) data that indicated the upper Columbia River Run was comprised of 55 % Chinook salmon (wt = 18.5 lb), 5 % coho salmon (wt = 8.9 lb), 7 % sockeye salmon (wt = 3.5 lb), and 31 % steelhead (wt = 7.3 lb). ! • Minimum number of 825,184 total salmon, comprised of 250,809 Chinook, 47,395 coho, 168,726 sockeye, and 358,254 steelhead caught by UCUT Tribes based on equation: # (by species) = [Total WT (= 8,436,300 lb) X decimal % (0.55 for Chinook)] ÷ Ave WT for species (18.5 lb for Chinook = 250,809 Chinook harvested. Sockeye Salmon Nursery Lakes Lake (River System) Surface Area (acres) Lake (River System) Surface Area (acres) Upper Arrow (CR-BC) 51,904 Keechelus (YR-WA) 1,240

Lower Arrow (CR-BC) 37,504 Cle Elum (YR-WA) 1,928

Whatshan (CR-BC) 4,004 Suttle (MR-OR) 250 Redfish (SR-ID) 1,500 Slocan (KR-BC) 16,738 Alturas (SR-ID) 395 Chain (LSR-WA) 88 Pettit (SR-ID) 395 Okanogan (OR-BC) 85,990 Yellow Belly (SR-ID) 170 Skaha (OR-BC) 4,697 Stanley (SR-ID) 177 Osoyoos (OR-BC/WA) 5,729 Wallowa (GRR-OR) 1,777 Wenatchee (WR-WA) 2,445 Payette (PR-ID) 1,000

Bumping (YR-WA) 632 Little Payette (PR-ID) 300

Kachess (YR-WA) 2,744 Up. Payette (PR-ID) 200 Sockeye Salmon • Sockeye nursery lake area above totals 110,238 acres + Lake Roosevelt = 81,000 acre lake that is relatively productive for planktivorous fish. • Sockeye nursery lake area in Sawtooth Mountain region of totals 2637 acres. • 110,238 ÷ 2637 = 41.8 X • 191,238 ÷ 2637 = 72.5 X • From January 1, 2007 – March 12,2014 Bonneville Power Administration has spent $56,285,548 on Endangered Sockeye that occupy just 2,637 acres of nursery lakes. • From Jan 1, 2007 thru March 12, 2014, a total of 7,110 sockeye have been counted passing over Lower Granite Dam on the Snake River($56,285,548 ÷7,110 = $7916.39/fish). Sockeye Salmon Nursery Lakes • Total production occurred in 226,510 acres of nursery lakes. • Assuming equal productivity, approximately 48.7 % of the total occurred in the blocked area above Grand Coulee Dam and 42.7 % occurred in the Okanogan River Sub-basin. • Chapman (1986) estimated the historical sockeye run ranged from 2,253,000 – 2,623,000 based on catch/escapement data. • NPPC (1986) estimated the historical sockeye run ranged from 1,529,000 – 2,600,000 based on catch/escapement data. Sockeye Salmon Escapement (Past 5 years) • During past 5 years adult sockeye escapement has averaged (ranged): – 243,418 (146,111 – 410,620) at Rock Island Dam; – 216,799 (131,600 – 363,314) at Rocky Reach Dam; – 198,862 (111,508 – 326,107) at Wells Dam. • Estimates of adult escapement averaged (ranged): – Lake Wenatchee = RI count – RR count – Lake Wenatchee = 26,619 (1,487 – 47,306) – Okanogan River = Wells count – Okanogan River = 198,508 (111,508 – 326,107) Sockeye Salmon Calculation • Sockeye escapement into the Wenatchee and Okanogan Sub-basins averaged (ranged): 225,127 (112,995 – 373,413) from 2009 – 2013. • Assuming that Skaha Lake, Osoyoos Lake and Lake Wenatchee (total acres = 12,871) are the only lakes contributing to juvenile production, this means that 226,510 ÷ 12,871 = 17.6. • Assuming that all of the sockeye lakes are equally productive, sockeye adult escapement basin-wide could average (range) 17.6 x 225,127 (112,995 – 373,414) = 3,962,235 (1,988,712 – 6,572,069), i.e, more than calculated by Chapman (1986) or NPPC (1986). Sockeye Above Grand Coulee Dam • Restoring sockeye to all of their former nursery lakes above Grand Coulee Dam could produce adult escapements that are approximately 48.7 % of the adult escapement: – 0.487 x (2,253,000 – 2,623,000) = 1,097,211 – 1,277,401 if Chapman’s (1986) numbers are used; – 0.487 x (1,529,000 – 2,600,000) = 744,623 – 1,266,200 if NPPC’s (1986) numbers are used; – 0.487 x (1,988,712 – 6,572,069) = 968,502 – 3,200,598 if numbers calculated above are used. ! • Probably should not expect numbers as optimistic as these because: – Fish have to travel downstream and back upstream through 11–12 mainstem dams; – Productivity in ocean is limited by Pacific Decadal Oscillation and El Nino events; – Fish must pass through many commercial and sport fisheries; – Adult spawning habitat above GCD is likely reduced from historic levels. Sockeye Above Grand Coulee Dam • One reason to be optimistic about sockeye is that they would have a new productive 81,000 acre nursery lake (Lake Roosevelt) available to them (it would just about double the nursery lake habitat that was formerly available). • Lake Roosevelt is already known to produce good quantities of large bodied zooplankton which are preferred prey of juvenile sockeye residing in nursery lakes (but a large population might prey on them is a size- selective fashion and reduce the population). The sockeye might also compete with resident kokanee, native redband and hatchery that also occur in Lake Roosevelt.