In 1889, the year Washington became a state; six rivers were closed to salmon fishing. Legislators claimed this was for conservation. All of these were fishing grounds used by Native Americans. The state would soon make all rivers, except for the Columbia, off limits for net fishing. The Native American’s main way of catching fish was now illegal.

Commercial Fishing

As commercial fishing in the area increased more of the fisheries became industrialized. Commercial fishers were pulling millions of tons of salmon from the Pacific and the Puget Sound each year. Commercial fishers saw the tribe members as competitors and asked the state to intervene on their behalf. The tribe members didn’t get licenses and didn’t follow guide lines regarding fishing seasons and catch limits. Commercial fishers used these as reasons to blame Native Americans for the declining fish runs. The tribes argued that the decline was from too much commercial fishing as well as dam building and logging. Extensive research over the next few decades would confirm that the tribes were correct. Research done by the state of Washington showed that the tribes were catching less than 5% of the harvestable salmon. This was essentially what was left over after the commercial fishers took in their haul. Even though the tribes were only catching a small amount of fish, this was done in secret and illegal acts.

Fish-ins

The state had initially only sporadically arrested the Native American fishermen. By the 1960s there would be a series of raids and stings, most of which took place on the Nisqually River. This river would become the focal point of the protest action taken by tribal members and their sympathizers. The members of the tribes adapted to the tactics being used by other movements of the 1960s. Activists (Gov. Evens would refer to them as a “renegade leaders”) led by Robert Satiacum and Billy Frank Jr. organized “fish-ins” to defy the states attempt to regulate their fishing. Franks was a former U.S. Marine. He would host many of the fish-ins on his family’s 6-acre riverfront parcel. Frank’s Landing was a main center of the resistance movement. Frank would be arrested more than 40 times defying fishing laws.

The state used several resources to identify and crack down on the fish-ins. Planes and boats were used for surveillance. Game wardens enforced the fishing laws with tear gas, clubs and firearms. The confrontations between state and the tribes received nationwide television coverage. The activist received support from many well known Americans including Marlon Brando and Jane Fonda. Brando was arrested in a 1964 fish-in on the Puyallup River. He said he was “helping some Indian friends fish.” As time went on the confrontations became more violent. Fishing boats were rammed, vigilantes shot at activists, and the tribe members began fighting back with their hands and rocks. Lawmakers were under considerable pressure. Congressman Meeds, whose district areas used by white fisherman such as Everett and the San Juans, supported the tribes. His popularity among his constituency fell dramatically and he chose not to run for a seventh term because it was obvious he would lose.

U.S. v. Washington

The local tribes tried legal action to stop state regulation. The case reached the U.S. Supreme in 1968. Their decision was too ambiguous and left the issue unresolved. In 1970, Stan Pitkin, Nixon’s U.S. Attorney for Western Washington, filed a complaint against the state of Washington. This was defended by State Attorney General Slade Gorton.

After the filing of U.S. v. Washington there was a major fish-in on the Puyallup River. Tacoma police sent in helmeted officers using tear gas and clubs to break up a fish-in. Shots were fired, tribe members were beaten and 59 protestors were arrested.

The case was assigned to U.S. District Court Judge George Hugo Boldt. This was not encouraging for the Native Americans. Boldt was a conservative in his 60s. He had been appointed by Eisenhower and had no background in Indian Law. He was also well known as a sport fisherman. Most sport fisherman blamed Native American fishers for a decline on steelhead runs. Years earlier, six activists, including Billy Frank, had spend 30 days in jail for participating in a fish-in. Their attorney argued in front of Judge Boldt that they should be released on the grounds on an illegal arrest. Their released was denied.
The trial began on August 27, 1973 and continued until February of 1974. Judge Boldt presided over the hearings and held court six days a week including on the Labor Day holiday. Inside the court room there was testimony from forty nine experts and tribal members. Outside the court there were pickets and hangings in effigy. The main question was whether the state of Washington could regulate fishing practices of Indians who had signed treaties with the U.S. government. Beyond that there was the question of whether the tribes, who were a nation within a nation, could rule their own people and have a say in their destinies.
The main arguments of both sides of the case resolved around one clause in the treaty. The clause read “The right of taking fish at usual and accustomed grounds and stations is further secured to said Indians in common with all citizens of the territory.” Gorton argued that the words “in common with all citizens” meant that the tribes would have to be subject to state control like all other residents. Pitkin argued that the treaties gave them the unrestricted right to fish at any of their “usual and accustomed places.” Members of the tribe testified that fishing in those rivers had been a longstanding and important part of their culture. They respected that fact that Judge Boldt was very attentive and listened to them.

The Boldt Decision

At the end of the trial Judge Boldt handed down a 203 page decision. He found in favor of the tribe. Boldt came to his decision by referring to an 1828 edition of Webster’s American Dictionary to interpret the phrase “in common with.” The way he understood it, the government had promise to secure the fisheries for the tribe was central to the treaty-making process and that the tribes had an original right to the fish, which they extended to the white settlers. The state did not have to the power to tell tribe how to manage something that had always belonged to them. The decision allocated 50% of the annual catch to the members of the 1855 treaty, but denying federal recognition to landless tribes such as Samish, Snoqualmie, Steilacoom, and Duwamish. Boldt also ordered the state to take action to limit fishing by non-Indians. The decision upset many white fishermen. The ruling was protested by white fisherman, sometimes violently. The Boldt Decision was upheld in the state appellate court in 1975 and again in the U.S. Supreme Courts in 1979.

The decision was a major victory for the Native Americans. The tribes represented only 1% of the state’s population and were now legally entitled to 50% of the harvested fish. Boldt made the tribes co-managers of the state’s fisheries. This meant that a group of people that was once seen as poachers, now had equal status as the state. The decision hand a profound effect on Native Americans throughout the country. Native Americans had a new political status and tribal treaties were now seen at the same level as state law. The principles of the Boldt decision have been applied to other resources, including shellfish.

References

Read about the Boldt decision
Treaty of Yakama 1855
Read about Bill Frank
Seattle PI writes about 30th anniversary of Boldt Decision