Living Law,
Living LandSupport land rights

Violation

Stevens treaty fishing rights: Boldt (1974) and Washington v. Fishing Vessel Ass'n (1979)

Not yet reviewed by this nation. What follows comes from public records and research. It does not speak for the nation.

Treaties guaranteed tribal fishing at usual places 'in common with' citizens; Washington limited it for decades until the 1974 Boldt ruling.

Treaty
Stevens Treaties (Medicine Creek, Point Elliott, Point No Point, Neah Bay, Quinault, Yakama)
Nations
Treaty tribes of western Washington, including Nisqually, Puyallup, Lummi, Suquamish and others
When
1900s-1974
Land affected
(Decades of denied fishing access; later recovered.)
Acreage
n/a
Legal aftermath
Rights confirmed and implemented; ongoing disputes include the culvert case (2007 ruling affirmed by the Ninth Circuit in 2016, per Wikipedia).

What happened

The Stevens treaties of the 1850s secured to Western Washington tribes the "right of taking fish at usual and accustomed grounds and stations . . . in common with all citizens of the Territory," as the Supreme Court quoted in 1979. Tribes ceded land and kept this right as part of the bargain.

The Washington Secretary of State's history says "For decades, the State of Washington ignored this promise." Conflicts on the rivers, often called the Fish Wars, grew as tribal members fished and the State saw the treaties as outdated. In United States v. Washington, Judge George Boldt ruled on February 12, 1974, that the promises of the treaties remained in effect, "guaranteeing tribes up to half of the harvest," according to the Secretary of State's history.

On July 2, 1979, the Supreme Court largely upheld the ruling. It held that an equitable measure of the common right should initially divide the harvestable portion of each run, and said "the 50% figure imposes a maximum but not a minimum allocation." The Court noted that "the Game Department simply refused to comply" with the federal court's orders, so the District Court directly supervised parts of the state fisheries. Disputes over salmon habitat and other fishing questions have continued.

Summarized with AI assistance from 2 sources and checked against their words; not yet reviewed by historians or by the nations. Report an error

What the sources say, and how this was checked

Well supported by the sources below.

  1. the 50% figure imposes a maximum but not a minimum allocationWashington v. Passenger Fishing Vessel Ass'n, 443 U.S. 658 (1979) (Cornell LII)
  2. For decades, the State of Washington ignored this promiseThe Boldt Decision (Washington Secretary of State)

Research notes. Input percentages (about 43% of Puget Sound harvest, 49% by 1984), the Coast Guard enforcement detail and the culvert case came from Wikipedia and were not verified here; they are omitted. The 1975 Ninth Circuit affirmation was not checked. The wording of 'how' is a simplification: the state both regulated tribal fishers and, later, refused to comply with the order.

Treaty or agreementTreaty under documented pressureShapes from the 1899 federal record: approximate, not legal boundaries.

Who is doing the work

This history belongs to living nations. Start with them:

Working with these nations

Land return and Native-led work nearby

Native legal and land defense, nationally

Gifts go straight to each organization; this atlas takes nothing. Listing is not endorsement: how organizations are listed.

Connections

These links were matched automatically by name or date and have not yet been reviewed by a person.

Concerns the instrument 6

Nations named 3

Taken to court in 2

Located in 1

Policy era 1

Sources

  1. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boldt_Decisionpointer
  2. treaties.okstate.edu/treaties/treaty-with-the-nisqualli-puyallup-etc-1854-0661reference work
  3. supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/443/658/legal text copy
The record’s fields
What happened
Stevens treaty fishing rights: Boldt (1974) and Washington v. Fishing Vessel Ass'n (1979) -- The treaties secured 'the right of taking fish, at all usual and accustomed grounds and stations... in common with all citizens of the Territory.' For decades Washington regulated and arrested treaty fishers. Judge George Boldt (W.D. Wash.) in United States v. Washington, 384 F. Supp. 312 (1974), read 'in common with' as equal sharing, giving treaty and non-treaty fishers each up to 50% of the harvestable fish; the formula gave tribes about 43% of the Puget Sound harvest (about 18% statewide). The Ninth Circuit affirmed in 1975. When the state would not enforce the order, Boldt directed the Coast Guard and National Marine Fisheries Service to do so. The Supreme Court (July 2, 1979, Stevens) largely upheld the ruling: the treaties guarantee a share of each run, an equitable division begins with roughly equal shares, and the 50% figure is a ceiling that can fall if tribal needs can be met with less. Tribal share of the harvest rose from under 5% before the ruling to 49% by 1984 (Wikipedia), and tribes became co-managers.
Kind
Violation
Confidence
High
Nation review
Not yet reviewed by this nation
Notes
  • Some details not yet checked against a source

Correct this record