Court: Supreme Court of the United States; May 27, 1968; Federal Supreme Court; Federal Appellate Court
The cases involve the Puyallup Tribe and other petitioners challenging the constitutionality of Washington State's conservation measures that allegedly infringe upon their treaty rights established in the Treaty of Medicine Creek (1854). The central issue is the interpretation of fishing rights protected under Article III of the Treaty, which secures the right to fish at traditional locations alongside all citizens of the Territory. The specific species involved are salmon (four species: chinook, silver, chum, pink) and steelhead, both of which are anadromous fish associated with the Puyallup and Nisqually Rivers.
Washington State regulates fishing by designating permissible times, areas, and gear, requiring licenses for fishing. The state prohibits certain fishing methods, including set nets and monofilament gill net webbing, across its waters. The Puyallup and Nisqually tribes utilize set nets for fishing in various locations, including Commencement Bay and the mouths of their respective rivers, both for sustenance and commercial purposes. These practices are considered illegal under state law if valid. The trial court initially ruled in favor of the respondents (the State), and the Supreme Court affirmed this decision in part while remanding further findings on the conservation measures' implications for treaty rights.
The right to fish at "usual and accustomed places" under a treaty with the Yakima Indians was affirmed in United States v. Winans, where the Supreme Court determined that this right is a "continuing" one that remains intact despite changes in land ownership. The Court emphasized that interpreting the treaty as offering no rights beyond those existing before it would undermine the treaty's purpose. In Seufert Bros. Co. v. United States, the same provision was interpreted broadly to include all accustomed fishing locations, rejecting a narrow construction that would be unjust.
The treaty rights of the Puyallup and Nisqually tribes include fishing at these places, with the assumption that net fishing was customary at the time of the treaty and that commercial fishing existed then. However, the treaty does not specify the methods or purposes of fishing, indicating that the right to fish is not exclusive and is shared with all citizens of the Territory. Thus, the state has the authority to regulate fishing methods, catch sizes, and commercial fishing, provided regulations are non-discriminatory and serve conservation purposes.
In Tulee v. State of Washington, the Court reiterated that while the state can impose regulatory restrictions on fishing for conservation, it cannot impose licensing fees on tribal members for exercising their treaty rights to fish outside reservations, as such fees would condition these rights. The state retains police power to enforce conservation measures without infringing on the treaty's granted rights.
The document addresses the legal framework surrounding the fishing rights of Native Americans as established by treaties and subsequent legislation. It emphasizes the nation's obligation to secure fishing rights for Indians, specifically the right to fish at traditional locations, while acknowledging the state's authority to regulate these rights without unreasonable restriction. The case of Kennedy v. Becker is referenced, where the court upheld convictions against Indians for violating state fishing laws, interpreting the treaty as reserving a privilege rather than a sovereign right, thus allowing state regulatory power.
Commercial fishing with purse seines and nets is permitted under state regulations for all, including Indians, while the use of set nets in fresh water is prohibited for everyone due to conservation concerns. An expert highlighted the vulnerability of salmon populations at river mouths, justifying the prohibition on set nets. The trial court is tasked with determining the reasonableness of this prohibition in relation to conservation and equal protection principles.
Further, the excerpt notes that while the treaty established a reservation, it also granted the President the authority to relocate Indians or allot land to individuals, with subsequent acts by Congress facilitating these processes. The General Allotment Act and the Puyallup Allotment Act are specifically mentioned as legislative actions that impacted the land distribution among individual Indians and the removal of restrictions on land alienation.
The trial court in case No. 247 determined that all lands within the reservation established by the Treaty have been transferred to private ownership, except for two small cemetery tracts for the tribe, with much land now within the City of Tacoma. The question of whether the reservation has been extinguished is left unresolved. The Washington Supreme Court recognizes that fishing rights in streams formerly within the reservation are protected under Article III of the Treaty of Medicine Creek, which only guarantees fishing rights, with no other rights specifically reserved. Fishing for salmon in international waters is regulated by conventions involving the U.S., Canada, and Japan, while Washington State regulations prohibit net fishing for salmon in these waters. Specific regulations govern commercial fishing in various water areas, with certain restrictions on gear and fishing types. Petitioners in No. 247 contend that Washington courts lack jurisdiction over the tribe in this matter, arguing it seeks to extinguish a tribal fishing right. However, the case is characterized as a suit to enforce state law against individual tribal members fishing outside the reservation, akin to prosecuting individuals for crimes committed off-reservation, which falls within state jurisdiction. Various fishing gear types, including purse seines and gill nets, are described, with specific regulations noted for their use.
Set gill nets are typically anchored at one end and held down by weights, with the other end drifting. They are stacked vertically at short distances, allowing fishermen to manually retrieve fish while moving along the net. The mesh size varies by salmon species: chinook requires 8 to 8.5 inches, while silver, chum, and sockeye require 5.5 inches. The case Maison v. Confederated Tribes of Umatilla Indian Reservation, 314 F.2d 169 (C.A.9th Cir. 1963), is significant as it addresses treaty rights of Native Americans against Oregon's regulatory authority over salmon fishing for conservation purposes. The treaty grants the tribes the right to fish off-reservation at established locations alongside U.S. citizens. The Court of Appeals determined that Oregon's regulation of these treaty rights is permissible if there is a demonstrated need to limit fish catch and if the regulation is 'indispensable' to achieve that limitation. The concept of 'indispensable' is linked to the ruling in Tulee v. Washington, which indicated that imposing license fees is not essential for an effective conservation program, as such fees could interfere with federally reserved rights. The distinction between taxing and regulating fishing practices is emphasized, with the latter being evaluated based on its necessity for fish conservation. Furthermore, in a related case, a stipulation of facts eliminated the need for a tailored injunction, leading the Washington Supreme Court to instruct the trial court to limit the injunction to necessary violations of conservation laws. It was agreed that the 'usual and accustomed fishing grounds' include the Nisqually River and its tributaries downstream from the Nisqually Reservation. The defendants admitted to violating state conservation laws since 1960, and it was acknowledged that their continued fishing would threaten the salmon and steelhead populations, thus necessitating enforcement of state regulations for proper conservation.
