Native American Fishing Rights
Native American Fishing Rights refer to the legal and cultural entitlements of Indigenous groups in the United States to fish in their traditional waters, often rooted in treaties made with the federal government. These rights are particularly significant in the Northwest, where salmon fishing has been integral to the economic and cultural practices of tribes such as the Puyallup, who relied heavily on fish as a primary food source. Traditionally, the first salmon catch was celebrated with rituals that emphasized respect for the fish and the sustainability of the resource.
In the mid-20th century, tensions surfaced when tribal members in Washington faced accusations of overfishing, despite their minimal share of the overall catch. This led to widespread arrests and confrontations with state fishery authorities, which prompted tribes to challenge the state's actions in courts. The legal struggle reached a turning point in 1974 when a federal court affirmed that tribes had a right to fish in their "usual and accustomed places," marking a significant victory for Indigenous fishing rights.
The ongoing conflicts highlighted the broader struggles of Native Americans to assert their rights and maintain their cultural practices in the face of state regulations and opposition. The issue remains a touchstone of Indigenous rights and environmental justice today, reflecting the complexity of balancing cultural heritage with modern regulatory frameworks.
Native American Fishing Rights
Native Americans along Puget Sound in Washington militantly protected their fishing rights. The protests, based on treaties negotiated in the 1850’s, reached a peak in the 1960’s, leading to judicial recognition of fishing rights in 1974.
Origins and History
To the Northwest Indian nations, the salmon was central to economic life. For example, fish made up 80 percent to 90 percent of the Puyallup diet. However, salmon was more than food; it was the center of a way of life. A cultural festival accompanied the first salmon caught in the yearly run. The fish was barbecued over an open fire, and bits of its flesh were parceled out to all. The bones were saved intact and were carried by a torch-bearing, singing, dancing, and chanting procession back to the river, where they were placed in the water, the head pointed upstream, symbolizing the spawning fish and ensuring that the run would return in later years. In treaties in the 1850’s, the Indians had agreed to give up large amounts of land in exchange for the right to fish at their “usual and accustomed places.”
In the late 1950’s, American Indians in Washington were accused of “overfishing,” although their catch accounted for less than 1 percent of the total state harvest. By the early 1960’s, state fishery officials were conducting wholesale arrests of Indians, confiscating their boats and nets. The Indians took their treaty-rights case to state courts and found these courts solidly in support of non-Indian commercial interests.
The tribes pursued their claim at the federal level. During the 1960’s and early 1970’s, they also militantly protected their rights in the face of raids by state fishery authorities. Fishing rights activists took to their boats in several locations along Puget Sound, from Franks Landing, near Olympia, to Tulalip, near Everett, north of Seattle. State fishery police descended on the Indian fishers as the legal battle continued in the courts. Vigilante sports fishers joined state fishery police in harassing the Indians, stealing their boats, slashing their nets, and sometimes shooting at them. Tribal elders and women joined the young Indian men in their protests, and many non-Indians, including actorMarlon Brando, also lent support.
Impact
By 1965, the United States Supreme Court had ruled that Indians had a right to fish at their “usual and accustomed places” but that the state had the right to regulate Indian fishing through its courts. That ruling, and a few federal court rulings after it, had little practical effect as long as the state, whose fishery managers were adamantly opposed to any fishing by Indians, held enforcement power.
The protests, dubbed “fish-ins,” continued until February 12, 1974, when United States District Court Judge George Boldt ruled that Indians were entitled to an opportunity to catch as many as half the fish returning to off-reservation sites that had been the “usual and accustomed places” when the treaties were signed.
Additional Information
The fishing-rights protests are described in more detail in Wasichu: The Continuing Indian Wars (1979), by Bruce Johansen and Roberto Maestas.