page_title: United States v. Washington
section_title: Holding
hierarchical_section_title: United States v. Washington / U.S. District Court (Boldt decision) / Holding
caption_attribution_description: English: Men and women hauling a fishing net onto a beach on the Quileute Indian Reservation
context_page_description: United States v. Washington, 384 F. Supp. 312, aff'd, 520 F.2d 676, commonly known as the Boldt Decision, was a 1974 case heard in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. It reaffirmed the reserved right of American Indian tribes in the State of Washington to act alongside the state as co-managers of salmon and other fish, and to continue harvesting them in accordance with the various treaties that the United States had signed with the tribes. The tribes of Washington had ceded their land to the United States but had reserved the right to fish as they had always done, including fishing at their traditional locations that were off the designated reservations.
  Over time, the state of Washington had infringed on the treaty rights of the tribes despite losing a series of court cases on the issue. Those cases provided the Indians a right of access through private property to their fishing locations, and said that the state could neither charge Indians a fee to fish nor discriminate against the tribes in the method of fishing allowed.
context_section_description: The court held that when the tribes conveyed millions of acres of land in Washington State through a series of treaties signed in 1854 and 1855, they reserved the right to continue fishing. The court looked at the minutes of the treaty negotiations to interpret the meaning of the treaty language "in common with" as the United States described it to the tribes, holding that the United States intended for there to be an equal sharing of the fish resource between the tribes and the settlers. As the court stated, the phrase means "sharing equally the opportunity to take fish... therefore, nontreaty fishermen shall have the opportunity to take up to 50% of the harvestable number of fish... and treaty right fishermen shall have the opportunity to take up to the same percentage." The formula used by Boldt gave the tribes 43% of the Puget Sound harvest, which was equivalent to 18% of the statewide harvest. The order required the state to limit the amount of fish taken by non-Indian commercial fishermen, causing a drop in their income from about $15,000–20,000 to $500–2000.
  Furthermore, the court also held the state could regulate the Indians' exercise of their treaty rights but only to ensure the "perpetuation of a run or of a species of fish." To regulate the Indians, the state must be able to show that conservation could not be achieved by regulating only the non-Indians, must not discriminate against the Indians, and must use appropriate due process.
caption: Men and women hauling a fishing net onto a beach on the Quileute Indian Reservation
exif: {}