A Look at Indian Treaties

I've been reading a few court cases that helped define fishing in the Pacific Northwest waters. In my reading, I soon discovered that most of the controversy over who has claim to how many fish revolves around the language of the Treaty of Olympia. The language of the treaty that acknowledges the fishing rights of the Indians is as follows:

"The right of taking fish, at all usual and accustomed grounds and stations, is further secured to said Indians, in common with all citizens of the Territory, and of erecting temporary houses for the purpose of curing, together with the privilege of hunting, gathering roots and berries, and pasturing their horses on open and unclaimed lands: Provided, however, That they shall not take shell fish from any beds staked or cultivated by citizens."

Most people, me being in this group, read this to simply state that Indians will have the same (or equal) right to fish as citizens of the then Washington Territory. This interpretation held true until it was challenged in the late 1970's. After a thorough examination by the various court cases, a new definition was extrapolated that said that Indians had an unrestricted right to take fish and had a right to an equal share of the yearly fish harvest. The court reasoned that at the time of the treaty's signing, there existed so many fish that it was unforeseeable that fish stocks would eventually become almost exhausted. Therefore, the treaty was signed with presumption that the Indians would always be able to take as many fish as they required for their subsistence.

 

The court further reasoned that each party to the treaty had an equal claim to the fish. To define whom a party to the treaty was, they classified all Indian nations as one party and all others as the other party. Further, they explained that if there existed but two fish, every Indian nation would have claim to one of these two while every other non-Indian would have claim to the other.

 

After careful reading, I must admit that I tend to agree with the court's latter conclusion as to what was intended when the Indian nations made their marks on the various treaties with the United States government.

 

Here are a couple of links you may find interesting:

The Treaty of Olympia, Jan. 6, 1856
A court case rejecting the Chahalis Indian's claim to be part of the Treaty of Olympia
Washington State Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel Association et al.

In closing, I think that the frustration the sport-fisherman feels is real. The reason I looked into the history of fishing rights for the Puget Sound area was because of this frustration. In my opinion, the sport-fisherman needs to forget about trying to quash the Indian's claim to fishing, and needs to concentrate his efforts on regaining a more equitable reservation of fish from non-Indian commercial fishing. This statement is made with the understanding that tax money is being used to keep the fish populations from disappearing. Without the tax-subsidized intervention, if a sport-fisherman wants a better chance of taking fish, buy a bigger boat so you can catch more fish--or become a commercial fisherman.