Indian Fishing Rights in the Pacific Northwest: The Need for

Click here to load reader

  • date post

    12-Sep-2021
  • Category

    Documents

  • view

    0
  • download

    0

Embed Size (px)

Transcript of Indian Fishing Rights in the Pacific Northwest: The Need for

Indian Fishing Rights in the Pacific Northwest: The Need for Federal Intervention12-1-1987
Indian Fishing Rights in the Pacific Northwest: The Need for Federal Intervention Brian Richard Ott
Follow this and additional works at: http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/ealr
Part of the Animal Law Commons, and the Environmental Law Commons
This Comments is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. For more information, please contact nick.szydlowski@bc.edu.
Recommended Citation Brian R. Ott, Indian Fishing Rights in the Pacific Northwest: The Need for Federal Intervention, 14 B.C. Envtl. Aff. L. Rev. 313 (1987), http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/ealr/vol14/iss2/5
INTERVENTION
I. INTRODUCTION
In the days before European explorers discovered the New World, abundant supplies of fish existed throughout the waterways of the Pacific Northwest. Every stream and river served as a spawning ground for large numbers of salmon and steelhead trout. 1 These fish, commonly described as anadromous,2 supplied a base for the complex Indian economies existing in the region. Because spawning runs occur at predictable intervals over precise waterways,3 the tribes were able to harvest millions of pounds of salmon and steelhead trout annually.4 The tribes preserved the captured fish for later use by drying or smoking, thereby insuring a steady year-round food sup-
*Citations Editor, 1986-1987, BOSTON COLLEGE ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS LAW REVIEW. 1 AMERICAN FRIENDS SERVICE COMMITTEE, UNCOMMON CONTROVERSY: FISHING RIGHTS
OF THE NISQUALLY, PUYALLUP, AND MUCKLE SHOOT INDIANS 148 (1970), [hereinafter UN­ COMMON CONTROVERSY]. An early settler commented "The waters of the Bay and all the streams that flow into it, are well stocked with fish. Salmon of several varieties abound, and are taken in great numbers by the Indians for their own food or for trading with the whites." Id. Archeological evidence indicates that Indian fishing has existed on the Columbia River System for 6,000 years. Comment, State Pawer and the Indian Treaty Right to Fish, 59 CALIF. L. REV. 485 (1971).
2 Anadromous fish are marine species which hatch in the gravel beds of fresh water streams and migrate to the open ocean where they mature into adults. After three to five years the lifecycle is completed when the fish return to fresh water to spawn. Six species of anadromous fish exist in the Pacific Northwest. Five are salmon-the chinook, coho, sockeye, pink, and chum or dog, while one is an anadromous variety of rainbow trout, the steelhead. Brief for Petitioners, Washington State, at 15-16, Washington v. Washington Comm'l Passenger Fish­ ing Vessel Ass'n, 443 U.S. 658 (1979) (No. 77-983).
3 The anadromous species have a homing instinct, allowing them to return to their natal stream. UNCOMMON CONTROVERSY, supra note 1, at 148.
4 It is estimated that the tribes took 18 million pounds of salmon annually from the Columbia River system before the White man's arrival. Id. at 4 n.3.
313
314 ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS [Vol. 14:313
ply.5 Further, the preserved fish were an important trading com­ modity. Salmon was traded in high volume over an extensive geo­ graphic region. 6 The Northwest Indians bartered the preserved meat for lumber, blankets, vermilion, ceremonial masks, and other valu­ able items. 7 Later they exchanged the fish for kettles and guns from European explorers. 8
Along with their economic importance, the anadromous species served as the focal point for Indian culture. Social cohesion within the loosely-knit tribal groups was founded on the harvest. Every member of the community had a specific harvesting function. While men caught the fish using weirs, spears, and dip nets, the women cleaned and smoked them. Children gathered fire wood and helped clean fish. 9
Each community, in turn, was identified by its traditional fishing grounds. 10 Detailed procedures developed to prevent pollution of the streams and allow spawning to occur.11 Elaborate religious ceremo­ nies sought to insure the perpetual return of the fish.12 Even the Indians' interpretation of constellations had fishing themes. 13 So vital were fish to the Indian way of life that one jurist described them as "not much less necessary to the existence of the Indians than the atmosphere they breathed. "14
The Indian's way of life, however, was forever altered when the white man began his inexorable push into the Pacific Northwest. The earliest permanent white presence was fur trading posts, set up in the early eighteenth century to exploit the large beaver and otter populations. Protestant and Catholic missionaries arrived shortly thereafter in an attempt to convert the tribes to Christianity. By 1843, the Great Emigration brought hundreds of white settlers into the region. Within ten years, these settlers organized Oregon and Washington as separate territories of the United States. As more and more settlers entered the area, pressure soon mounted on the federal government to extinguish existing Indian land claims. To
5 From 80 to 90 percent of the Northwest Indians' diet consisted of salmon. [d. at 4. 5 Brief of Respondent, Indian Tribes, at 14, Washington v. Washington State Comm'l
Passenger Fishing Vessel Ass'n, 443 U.S. 658 (1979) (No. 77-983). 7 [d. at 13. B [d. 9 UNCOMMON CONTROVERSY, supra note 1, at 5. 10 [d. at 6. 11 Brief of Respondent, Indian Tribes, at 12, 443 U.S. 658 (1979) (No. 77-983). 12 UNCOMMON CONTROVERSY, supra note 1, at 4. 13 Brief of Respondent, Indian Tribes, at 12, 443 U.S. 658 (1979) (No. 77-983). 14 United States v. Winans, 198 U.S. 371, 381 (1905).
1987] INDIAN FISHING RIGHTS 315
accomplish this task, the United States authorized Isaac Stevens, as both governor and Superintendent of Indian Affairs in the Washing­ ton territory, to negotiate treaties on its behalf with the various tribes.
Stevens arrived in the Washington territory in 1853. During ne­ gotiations that commenced soon after his arrival, Stevens discovered that, while the Indians recognized that the white man's growing presence required them to sell much of their homeland, they des­ perately sought to retain their traditional fishing grounds. 15 Indeed, the government negotiators recognized that preserving the right to fish was indispensable to the conclusion of any treaty with the Pacific Northwest Indians. 16 As one treaty negotiator said, "[T]hey [the Indians] require the liberty of motion for the purpose of seeking, in their proper season, roots, berries, and fish, where those articles can be found."17
Eager to placate the signatory tribes, Stevens repeatedly assured the Indians that a treaty would preserve their fishing rights. His statement to the Indians negotiating the Treaty of Point-No-Point epitomizes this fact:
Are you not my children and also children of the Great Father? What will I not do for my children, and what will you not for yours? Would you not die for them? This paper is such as a man would give to his children and I will tell you why. This paper gives you a home. Does not a father give his children a home .... This paper secures your fish? [sic] Does not a father give food to his children?18
Similarly, Stevens encouraged a reluctant Nez Perce Chief during a signing ceremony by declaring, "Looking Glass knows that he can ... catch fish at any of the fishing stations. "19
Along with the Indian insistence upon retaining customary fishing grounds, other barriers impeded the negotiations. Foremost among . these was language. Most of the Indians did not speak English. As a result, the negotiations were conducted in Chinook jargon, a simple language of limited vocabulary primarily used for barter transac-
15 See Sohappy v. Smith, 302 F. Supp. 899, 906 (D. Or. 1969). 16 UNCOMMON CONTROVERSY, supra note 1, at 21. 17 Brief of Petitioners, Washington State, at 46, Washington v. Washington State Comm'l
Passenger Fishing Vessel Ass'n, 443 U.S. 658 (1979) (No. 77-983). 18 Appendix, at 330-31, 443 U.S. 658 (1979) (No. 77-983), quoting Documents Relating to
the Negotiation of the Treaty of Point-No-Point, January 26, 1855. 19 Sohappy, 302 F. Supp. at 906 n.l, quoting Record of Proceedings, Walla Walla Valley
Treaty Council, June 9, 1855, p. 145.
316 ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS [Vol. 14:313
tions. 20 The language proved to be ill-suited to the task. 21 It lacked words for such essential terms as "common," "usual," "accustomed," "citizens," and "steelhead."22 Furthermore, a vast majority of Indi­ ans present did not even understand Chinook jargon; interpreters had to translate the negotiations into tribal languages. 23
Despite the problems associated with the negotiations, Stevens concludeq ten treaties within the space of one year.24 The treaties, involving over 17,000 Indians, extinguished Indian land claims to more than one hundred thousand square miles of territory.25 In return, the Indians received monetary payments and express gov­ ernment recognition of certain reserved rights. Two of these re­ served rights are significant. First, the Indians reserved small par­ cels of land for their exclusive use--what are commonly known as reservations. Second, each treaty contained a provision securing traditional fishing rights. For example, Article III of the Treaty of Medicine Creek states: "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 tempo­ rary houses for the purpose of curing . . . .26
For some time after the signing of the treaty, little controversy arose from this provision. The number of white settlers were small and anadromous fish harvests remained bountiful. By the beginning of the twentieth century, however, the supply of harvestable fish dwindled. 27 Many factors caused this decline. New fishing devices,
20 UNCOMMON CONTROVERSY, supra note 1, at 23. 21 As one of Stevens' peers commented, "Of course it was utterly impossible to explain the
treaties to them [the Indians] in Chinook." UNCOMMON CONTROVERSY, supra note 1, at 23, quoting MEEKER, PIONEER REMINISCENCES, 208.
22 Brief of Respondent, Indian Tribes, at 17, 443 U.S. 658 (1979). 23 Brief of Petitioners, Washington State, at 34, 443 U.S. 658 (1979). 24 The ten treaties are: Treaty with the Flathead, July 16, 1855, United States-Flathead,
Kootenay, and Upper Pend d'Oreilles Tribes, 12 Stat. 975; Treaty of Olympia, July 1, 1855, United States-Qu-nai-elt and Qui-leh-ute Tribes, 12 Stat. 971; Treaty with the Tribes of Middle Oregon, June 25, 1855, United States-Walla Walla and Wascoe Tribes, 12 Stat. 963; Treaty with the Nez Perce, June 11, 1855, United States-Nez Perce Tribe, 12 Stat. 957; Treaty with the Yakimas, June 9, 1855, United States-Yakima Nation, 12 Stat. 951; Treaty with the Walla Wallas, June 9, 1855, United States-Walla Walla, Cayuse, and Umtilla Tribes, 12 Stat. 945; Treaty of Neah Bay, Jan. 31, 1855, United States-Makah Tribe, 12 Stat. 939; Treaty of Point No Point, Jan. 26,1855, United States-S'Klallams Tribe, 12 Stat. 933; Treaty of Point Elliot, Jan. 22, 1855, United States-Dwamish and Suquamish Tribes, 12 Stat. 927; and Treaty of Medicine Creek, Dec. 6, 1854, United States-Nisqually Tribe, 10 Stat. 1132.
26 UNCOMMON CONTROVERSY, supra note 1, at 19. 26 Treaty of Medicine Creek, Dec. 6, 1854, United States-Nisqually Tribe, art. 3, 10 Stat.
1132, 1133 (1854). 2:1 In the four year period from 1913 to 1916, the average commercial catch exceeded 15
1987] INDIAN FISHING RIGHTS 317
such as pound nets and fish wheels, enabled non-Indian fishermen to take unprecedented numbers of fish. The perfection of modern canning techniques allowed salmon to reach distant markets, causing demand to skyrocket.28 Logging operations, a major economic activ­ ity throughout the Northwest, choked waterways with sedimenta­ tion and erosion run-off.29 Diversion of streams for irrigation dried up spawning beds,30 and water pollution in the form of sewage and agricultural fertilizers deprived the fish of needed oxygen. 31
The greatest cause of decline, however, was the building of a series of dams on the Columbia river system. These dams eradicated spawning beds on 1,100 miles of river and tributaries. 32 They also created tremendous passage problems for the fish. While fish ladders and other means provide a passageway around most dams,33 each dam still claims an estimated fifteen to thirty percent of all fish attempting to pass.34 In addition, dams alter the river in a manner detrimental to the spawning process. The backup of water behind a dam increases its temperature and deprives the salmon and steel­ head of dissolved oxygen.35 Because the anadromous species have an exceedingly low tolerance for alterations in their environment, these changes will often severely impair or kill the fish. 36
In an attempt to halt this decline in the fish stocks, the affected state governments37 have enacted comprehensive resource manage­ ment plans, intended to have universal applicability. The Indian
million fish annually. Between 1964 and 1967, this same figure dropped to less than 3 million. See UNCOMMON CONTROVERSY, supra note 1, at 71.
28 In 1866, while packing techniques and fishing devices were unsophisticated, the total non­ Indian output consisted of 4,000 pounds. Twenty years later, the output had ballooned to approximately 30,000,000 pounds. Comment, Empty Victories: Indian Treaty Fishing Rights in the Pacific Northwest, 10 ENVTL. L. 413, 419 (1980) [hereinafter EMPTY VICTORIES].
29 Id. at 421 n.5I. so UNCOMMON CONTROVERSY, supra note 1, at 158. 31 Id. at 161. 32 I d. at 156. 33 Some dams, however, such as the Grand Coulee, provided no means of passage. As a
result, the runs on the upper Columbia were obliterated. Id. at 155 . .. EMPTY VICTORIES, supra note 28, at 421 n.47, quoting E. CHANEY, A QUESTION OF
BALANCE: WATERIENERGy-SALMON AND STEELHEAD PRODUCTION IN THE UPPER COLUM­ BIA BASIN, SUMMARY REPORT 6 (1978).
35 UNCOMMON CONTROVERSY, supra note 1, at 158. 36 See id. 37 Four states on the Pacific Coast have significant spawning runs on anadromous fish on
their waterways: California, Oregon, Washington, and Alaska. While all four have experienced problems conserving their anadromous resources, most of the litigation concerning Indian fishing rights has centered in Washington and Oregon. Therefore, unless otherwise indicated, any general reference to states or state governments are meant to indicate Washington and Oregon.
318 ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS [Vol. 14:313
tribes, in turn, have claimed exemption from the regulations, based on the wording of the treaty provisions and the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. The resulting controversy has been heated and, at times, violent.38 Part II of this Comment will layout the legal context of the dispute. Part III will outline the opposing arguments. Part IV will analyze the federal judiciary's handling of the dispute, and Part V will argue that federal legislative and administrative intervention is necessary in order to achieve a permanent solution.
II. LEGAL CONTEXT OF THE CONTROVERSY
A. The Legal Relationships
An analysis of the Indian fishing rights dispute may best be per­ formed by first defining the legal relationships existing between the three principal characters: the federal government, the Indian tribes, and the state government. Of these, the relationship between the federal government and the Indian tribes is the most distinc­ tive. 39 The relationship is premised on the broad power, often de­ scribed as plenary, which the United States holds over Indian tribes. The source of this power is an amalgam of several constitutional provisions, most notably the Indian Commerce Clause,40 the Treaty Clause,41 and the Property Clause.42 Taken together, these provi­ sions enable the national government to exercise comprehensive
38 A federal district court judge was hung in effigy and received death threats after the announcement of his decision concerning the controversy. Comment, Indian Treaty Analysis and Off-Reservation Rights: A Case Study, 51 WASH. L. REV. 61, 92 n.l68 (1975-76). Wide­ spread vandalism was also reported. See generally S. Rep. No. 667, 96th Cong., 2d Sess. 2, reprinted in 1980 U.S. CODE CONGo & ADMIN. NEWS 6793.
39 Chief Justice Marshall, in Cherokee Nation V. Georgia, 30 U.S. (5 Pet.) 1 (1831), noted that "[tlhe condition of the Indians in relation to the United States is perhaps unlike that of any other two people in existence .... [Tlhe relation of the Indians to the United States is marked by peculiar and cardinal distinctions which exist no where else." Id. at 16.
40 Under the Commerce Clause, Congress has authority to "regulate Commerce ... with the Indian Tribes" U.S. CONST. art. I, § 8, cl. 3.
41 U.S. CONST. art. II, § 2, cl. 2. This provision gives the federal government exclusive power to enter treaties. In 1851, however, Congress prohibited the government from entering into treaties with the Indian tribes. 16 Stat. 544, 566, 25 U.S.C. § 71 (1982). As a result, the importance of this provision as a source of federal power has diminished.
42 The Property Clause allows Congress to control "Territory or other Property belonging to the United States." U.S. CONST. art. IV, § 3, cl. 2. This provision is relevant because the United States holds ultimate fee title in all Indian lands. See infra notes 72-77 and accom­ panying text. At one time, the war powers of Congress, U.S. CONST. art. I, § 8, cIs. 1, 11, 12, 15-17, were also an important source of federal power over the Indian tribes.
1987] INDIAN FISHING RIGHTS 319
control over many aspects of Indian life. For example, Congress may validly regulate any commercial transaction involving Indians, either individually or as a tribal unit,43 it may regulate and dispose of Indian property without consent,44 and it may freely alter the tribal power of self-government. 45
Despite its characterization as plenary, federal power over the Indian tribes is not absolute. It has been subject to limitations, the greatest of which flows from the federal government's trust respon­ sibility. Because Indian tribes have historically been considered de­ pendents of the United States,46 the federal-tribal relationship has been considered similar to that which exists between a ward and his guardian. 47 As a result, the national government owes a special fiduciary duty to the tribes. This obligation contains many of the characteristics of a legally enforceable private trust. For example, it requires the United States, as trustee, to advance the best inter­ ests of the beneficiary tribes. In Manchester Band of Pomo Indians v. United States, a federal district court determined that the United States had not acted in the best interests of the plaintiff Indian band when it placed tribal trust funds in investments yielding less than the market rate of interest. 48 As a result, the court required the government to pay the difference between the return which a rea­ sonably prudent trustee would have gained and the actual return. 49
As a corollary to the principle of acting in the best interests of its guardian, the trust responsibility requires the government to sub­ ordinate its own interests to those of the Indian tribes. In Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe v. Morton, an Interior Department regulation allowing diversion of river water for a federal irrigation project was struck down because it would adversely affect an Indian tribe living
43 E.g., United States v. Holliday, 70 U.S. (3 Wall.) 407, 417-18 (1866). The full extent of federal authority over Indian commerce is displayed in the Indian liquor law cases. See, e.g., United States v. Nice, 241 U.S. 591 (1916); Dick v. United States, 208 U.S. 340 (1908).
44 See Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U.S. 553, 567-68 (1903). Compensation may be required for the exercise of this power. See Shoshone Tribe v. United States, 208 U.S. 476 (1937).
45 Examples of Congressional usurpation of tribal government include the Major Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1153 (1982) which provided the federal government with criminal jurisdiction over Indian reservations and the Indian Civil Rights Act, 25 U.S.C. §§ 1301-1341 (1982), subjecting official tribal actions to limited judicial review.
46 "They [the tribes] are communities dependent on the United States.…