This section contains legal decisions regarding native treaty fishing rights.
Quotes are taken directly from the decisions.
Many Columbia River Indians reserved in their treaties “the right of taking fish at all usual and accustomed places, in common with citizens of the Territory, and of erecting temporary buildings for curing them; together with the privilege of hunting, gathering roots and berries, and pasturing their horses and cattle upon open and unclaimed land.”
Treaty between the United States and the Yakama Nation of Indians, concluded at Camp Stevens, Walla Walla Valley, 9 June 1855, ratified by the Senate, 8 March 1859, proclaimed by the President of the United States, 18 April 1859.
United States v. Winans, 1905
Only a limitation of [those aboriginal rights], however, was necessary and intended [by the treaties], not a taking away. In other words, the treaty was not a grant of rights to the Indians, but a grant of rights from them — a reservation of those not granted.
* Upheld the right of easement over private property
Williams v. Seufert, 1916
* A test of the Winans decision in Oregon
Seufert Bros. v. United States, 1919
Tulee v. Washington, 1942
* Denied the state authority to demand that Indian fishers purchase licenses when fishing off-reservation
* States can regulate Indian fishing is needed for conservation
Seufert Bros. Company v. Hoptowit et al., 1951
Puyallup V. Washington, 1968
The right to fish at those respective [off-reservation] places is not an exclusive one. Rather it is one ‘in common with all citizens of the Territory.’ Certainly the right of the latter may be regulated. And we see no reason why the right of the Indians may not also be regulated by an appropriate exercise of the police power of the state.
* Indian off-reservation treaty fishing rights are subject to state regulation if necessary for conservation
U.S. v. Oregon, 1969
Fishers asked the court to define the legal extent of state regulation of their fisheries.
U.S. v. Oregon Judgement, 1969
* Indians have a right to a fair share of the harvestable catch
Washington v. Puyallup, 1973
The Treaty does not give the Indians a federal right to pursue the last living steelhead until it enters their nets.
* Set the standard for necessity of regulation for conservation in favor of the state
Settler v. Lameer, 1974
* Protected tribal control of off-reservation fishing sites
United States v. Washington, 1974
If alternative means and methods of . . . conservation regulation are available, the state cannot lawfully restrict the exercise of off-reservation treaty right fishing, even if the only alternatives are restriction of fishing by non-treaty fishermen, either commercially or otherwise, to the full extent necessary for conservation of fish.
* Found that many state fishing laws were discriminatory to Indians
* The state must prove that regulation is necessary for conservation
* A fair share (as introduced in U.S. v. Oregon) is fifty percent of the harvestable catch
Sohappy v. Smith, 1976
The state may limit treaty fishing only to the extent necessary to prevent the exercise of that right in a manner that will imperil the continued existence of the fish resource.
* Fourteen members of the Yakama Nation sued Washington state. The state argued that treaty fishing rights were tribal, not individual and, therefore, the individuals had no standing in the court. The court decided on behalf of the Indians.
Washington v. Fishing Vessel Association, 1979
United States v. Washington, Phase II, 1980
David Sohappy talks about his involvement in Sohappy v. Smith
David Sohappy was arrested several times for fishing the Columbia River. He defend his right to fish in court cases that went all the way to the Supreme Court.
