The Boldt Decision

Washington state’s clash with and Indians and Feds

Pacific Northwest Indians were known as the "fish eaters" by their neighbors to the north and east. Salmon have always been a staple oftheir diet, a means oftrade, and a focal point ofreligion and ceremony. In a series ofsix treaties in 1854, 1855, and 1856, Northwest Indian tribes surrendered more than 64 million acres ofIndian land; for this they were given education, job training, and money. In addition, all ofthe treaties stated; "The right oftaking fish at all usual and accustomed grounds and stations is further secured to said Indians in common with all other ofthe territory." Isaac Stevens, Superintendent ofIndian Affairs and later Washington’s first territorial governor, negotiated the treaties, which led to the opening ofthe territory to pioneers. The granting ofIndian treaty fishing rights posed few problems at first, as There were plenty of salmon to go around. Over the years, Indians were increasingly barred from fishing, though. Cannery owners placed fish traps, at the Indians "usual and accustomed grounds." As the years wore on, Indians found themselves blocked from hunting deer, collecting clams and catching salmon. By the end ofthe 1960s, their catch was reduced to 6 percent ofthe total.

In 1970 the federal government filed suit against Washington state on behalfofseven treaty Indian tribes "seeking declaratory and injunctive relief concerning off-reservation treaty right fishing." This action, US v.v. Washington, began one ofthe most controversial and complex legal battles in the history ofthe Pacific Northwest. Washington state maintained that although Indians caught 6 percent ofall fish in Washington, they were, nonetheless, at fault for overfishing the runs. US District Court Judge George H. Boldt issued his historical opinion on February 12, 1974, after hearing three years ofarguments. His opinion interpreted, primarily one ofthe treaties, the Treaty of Point Elliot, 1855. In what was later known as the Boldt decision, he found that Washington lacked evidence at all. As Attorney General, (and now, state senator) Slade Gorton argued in behalfWashington State. Boldt directed Washington Stateto "take appropriate steps" to ensure that Indian fishers received the opportunity to harvest fish in a manner consistent with the intent of US Indians treaties. In his opinion. Judge Boldt interpreted the words from the treaty "in common with" to mean "sharing equally," and he declared a fifty percent split between Indian treaty fishers and non-treaty fishers. However, many white fishers ignored the new regulations, which were designed to give the treaty Indians a chance to fish. No attempts were made to enforce the treaty regulations. The Washington State Supreme Court ruled that department ofFisheries and Game could not enforce Boldt’s ruling. In a bold move. Judge Boldt seizedjurisdiction over all parties involved while he prepared for Phase II ofthe Boldt decision. Phase II, which assessed the ownership ofhatchery fish and to whom fell the responsibility ofenvironmental destruction, was decided (by Judge William Orrick, who replaced the ailing Judge Boldt) on behalfofthe Indian tribes. Though somewhat gentler than the Boldt I decision. Boldt II implied tht Indian fishers had a legal right to the protection ofte salmon's environment, a point which spawned numerous law suits during the eighties. The legal battles still continue today. Questions remain. Native American fishing plays a crucial role in the future ofsalmon in the Pacific Northwest. To them, salmon remain vital to their economy as well as their culture. And ifthe state can regulate fishing, how can Indians be guaranteed their rights? And ifthe state cannot regulate Indian fishing, how can salmon be managed? In some ways, the Native Americans have won the battle for fifty percent ofthe Washington catch. It is an empty victory, however, ifthere are no salmon in the rivers. The battle is far from over. ^

Alyson McColl