Department of Game of Wash. v. Puyallup Tribe

1973-11-19

Headline: Treaty fishing rights upheld in steelhead dispute as Court reverses state ruling and sends case back to require fair allocation between tribal net fishing and sports fishing while protecting conservation measures.

Holding: The Court reversed the Washington Supreme Court’s judgment on steelhead regulations and remanded so the State must fairly accommodate tribal treaty fishing rights with conservation measures.

Real World Impact:

Requires fair allocation of steelhead between tribal net fishers and sports fishermen.
Allows conservation rules but bars regulations that discriminate against tribal treaty rights.
May force seasonal, area, or expert-based catch limits to preserve fish runs.

Topics: tribal fishing rights, fish conservation, state fishing rules, allocation of catch

Summary

Background

The State of Washington’s Department of Game and the Department of Fisheries sued the Puyallup Tribe and some members, saying state rules that banned net fishing at usual tribal fishing places applied to them. The Tribe relied on rights secured by the Treaty of Medicine Creek to fish at their usual and accustomed places. Earlier decisions recognized treaty fishing off reservation but allowed conservation rules that do not discriminate against Indians.

Reasoning

The narrow dispute concerned steelhead trout managed by the Department of Game. Washington’s courts upheld a total ban on net fishing for steelhead while allowing hook-and-line sports fishing, effectively allocating the run to sports fishermen. The record showed much of the run depended on hatchery-planted smolt funded largely by sports-fishing license fees, with a total run estimated at 16,000–18,000, about 5,000–6,000 native fish, and hatchery production around 10,000. The Court found discrimination in barring all Indian net fishing while allowing sports hook-and-line fishing and said experts must determine how to apportion the catch consistent with conservation.

Real world impact

The decision reverses the Washington Supreme Court’s judgment on steelhead and sends the cases back for further proceedings that fairly accommodate treaty rights and conservation. The ruling means tribal members, sports fishermen, and state agencies must develop expert-based regulations or allocation formulas. The Court also stressed conservation can justify limits and, in extreme scarcity, all fishing could be temporarily banned to preserve the species.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice White (joined by the Chief Justice and Justice Stewart) agreed but emphasized the Treaty does not require the State to subsidize the Indian fishery with hatchery fish paid for by sports fishermen and that treaty rights extend only to the natural run of about 5,000–6,000 fish.