Department of Game of Washington v. Puyallup Tribe Puyallup Tribe v. Department of Game of Washington 8212 481, 72 8212 746
Citation | 94 S.Ct. 330,414 U.S. 44,38 L.Ed.2d 254 |
Decision Date | 19 November 1973 |
Docket Number | Nos. 72,s. 72 |
Parties | DEPARTMENT OF GAME OF the State of WASHINGTON, Petitioner, v. The PUYALLUP TRIBE et al. PUYALLUP TRIBE, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF GAME OF the State of WASHINGTON. —481, 72—746 |
Court | United States Supreme Court |
Commercial net fishing by Puyallup Indians, for which the Indians have treaty protection, Puyallup Tribe v. Dept. of Game, 391 U.S. 392, 88 S.Ct. 1725, 20 L.Ed.2d 689, forecloses the bar against net fishing of steelhead trout imposed by Washington State Game Department's regulation, which discriminates against the Puyallups, and as long as steelhead fishing is permitted, the regulation must achieve an accommodation between the Puyallups' net-fishing rights and the rights of sports fishermen. Pp. 45—59.
80 Wash.2d 561, 497 P.2d 171, reversed and remanded.
Joseph L. Coniff, Jr., Olympia, Wash., for petitioner in No. 72—481 and for respondent in No. 72—746.
Harry R. Sachse, New Orleans, La., for respondents in No. 72 481 and petitioner in No. 72—746.
In 1963 the Department of Game and the Department of Fisheries of the State of Washington brought this action against the Puyallup Tribe and some of its members, claiming they were subject to the State's laws that prohibited net fishing at their usual and accustomed places and seeking to enjoin them from violating the State's fishing regulations. The Supreme Court of the State held that the tribe had protected fishing rights under the Treaty of Medicine Creek and that a member who was fishing at a usual and accustomed fishing place of the tribe may not be restrained or enjoined from doing so unless he is violating a state statute or regulation 'which has been established to be reasonable and necessary for the conservation of the fishery.' 70 Wash.2d 245, 262, 422 P.2d 754, 764.
On review of that decision we held that, as provided in the Treaty of Medicine Creek, the "right of taking fish, at all usual and accustomed grounds and stations (which) is . . . secured to said Indians, in common with all citizens of the Territory" extends to off-reservation fishing but that 'the manner of fishing, the size of the take, the restriction of commercial fishing, and the like may be regulated by the State in the interest of conservation, provided the regulation meets appropriate standards and does not discriminate against the Indians.' 391 U.S. 392, 395, 398, 88 S.Ct. 1725, 1728. We found the state court decision had not clearly resolved the question whether barring the 'use of set nets in fresh water streams or at their mouths' by all, including Indians, and allowing fishing only by hook and line in these areas was a reasonable and necessary conservation measure. The case was remanded for determination of that question and also 'the issue of equal protection implicit in the phrase 'in common with" as used in the Treaty. Id., at 400, 403, 88 S.Ct., at 1730, 1931.
In Washington the Department of Fisheries deals with salmon fishing, while steelhead trout are under the jurisdiction of the Department of Game. On our remand the Department of Fisheries changed its regulation to allow Indian net fishing for salmon in the Puyallup River (but not in the bay or in the spawning areas of the river). The Department of Game, however, continued its total prohibition of net fishing for steelhead trout. The Supreme Court of Washington upheld the regulations imposed by the Department of Fisheries which, as noted, were applicable to salmon; and no party has brought that ruling back here for review. The sole question tendered in the present cases concerns the regulations of the Department of Game concerning steelhead trout. We granted the petitions for certiorari, 410 U.S. 981, 93 S.Ct. 1495, 36 L.Ed.2d 177.
The Supreme Court of Washington, while upholding the regulations of the Department of Game prohibiting fishing by net for steelhead in 1970, 80 Wash.2d 561, 497 P.2d 171, held (1) that new fishing regulations for the Tribe must be made each year, supported by 'facts and data that show the regulation is necessary for the conservation' of the steelhead, id., at 576, 497 P.2d, at 180; (2) that the prohibition of net fishing for steelhead was proper because 'the catch of the steelhead sports fishery alone in the Puyallup River leaves no more than a sufficient number of steelhead for escapement necessary for the conservation of the steelhead fishery in that river.' Id., at 573, 497 P.2d, at 178 179.
The ban on all net fishing in the Puyallup River for steelhead1 grants, in effect, the entire run to the sports fishermen. Whether that amounts to discrimination under the Treaty is the central question in these cases.
We know from the record and oral argument that the present run of steelhead trout is made possible by the planting of young steelhead trout called smolt and that the planting program is financed in large part by the license fees paid by the sports fishermen. The Washington Supreme Court said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. State of Washington, Civ. No. 9213—Phase I.
...opportunity to consider whether to then exercise whatever jurisdiction it may have. This court has heretofore abstained solely because the Puyallup case was one which was a state court case from its inception and was remanded by the Supreme Court of the United States back to the supreme cou......
-
United States v. State of Mich.
...of Indians v. Washington, 391 U.S. 392, 88 S.Ct. 1725, 20 L.Ed.2d 689 (1968) (Puyallup I), and Washington v. Puyallup Tribe, 414 U.S. 44, 94 S.Ct. 330, 38 L.Ed.2d 254 (1973) (Puyallup II), the United States Supreme Court ruled that because of the language contained in the Indian treaty with......
-
U.S. v. White
...statute, despite the general disfavor of unexpressed exemptions from tax burdens. In Department of Game of Washington v. Puyallup Tribe, 414 U.S. 44, 94 S.Ct. 330, 38 L.Ed.2d 254 (1973) (Puyallup II), the Court permitted state regulation of the manner of exercising a nonexclusive treaty rig......
-
United States v. State of Mich.
...the outcome of an appeal. LIKELIHOOD OF SUCCESS ON APPEAL The State indicated its likelihood of success on appeal is predicated upon the "Puyallup line of cases and Washington v. Fishing Vessel Ass'n 443 U.S. 658, 99 S.Ct. 3055, 61 L.Ed.2d 823 This court considered the Puyallup line of case......
-
Native Treaties and Conditional Rights After Herrera.
...139 S. Ct. 1686. (109.) Id. at 991-93 (first quoting Race Horse, 163 U.S. at 515; and then quoting Dep't of Game v. Puyallup Tribe, 414 U.S. 44, 45 (110.) Id. at 994 (quoting Race Horse, 163 U.S. at 504). (111.) Id. (112.) Id. (113.) See infra Parts II.B.1-.2. (114.) Though the Framers at t......
-
Protecting habitat for off-reservation tribal hunting and fishing rights: tribal comanagement as a reserved right.
...lands outside the boundaries of the lands ceded by the Nation). (255) Tulee, 315 U.S. at 684. (256) Department of Game v. Puyallup Tribe, 414 U.S. 44, 48 (257) Washington v. Washington State Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel Ass'n, 443 U.S. 658, 685 (1979). (258) See discussion supra note......
-
Borrowing instead of taking: how the seemingly opposite threads of Indian treaty rights and property rights activism could intertwine to restore salmon to the rivers.
...(1979), modified sub. nom., Washington v. United States, 444 U.S. 816 (1979). (222) Department of Game of Washington v. Puyallup Tribe, 414 U.S. 44, 49 (1973). Justice Douglas warned, "the Treaty does not give the Indians a federal right to pursue the last living steelhead until it enters t......
-
United States v. Washington: the Boldt decision reincarnated.
...(76) Id. at 685. (77) See, e.g., Puyallup Tribe, Inc. v. Department of Game, 433 U.S. 165 (1977); Department of Game v. Puyallup Tribe, 414 U.S. 44 (1973); Puyallup Tribe v. Department of Game, 391 U.S. 392 (78) Puyallup Tribe v. Department of Game, 391 U.S. at 398. (79) Id. at 399. (80) Id......