Opinion ID: 3064986
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Inferences favoring Suquamish.

Text: [9] Both the language that Judge Boldt used and the evi- dence before him, specifically the Lane Report, support an inference that he intended to include the disputed areas in 29 Dr. Lane testified that a trip from Port Madison to the San Juans would take one day. It would be no more than another day from the San Juans to the Fraser River and Fort Langley. The testimony before Judge Boldt supports the conclusion that the entire trip would take two days. Judge Craig heard different evidence in 1983. See United States v. Wash- ington, 626 F. Supp. 1405, 1529 (W.D. Wash. 1985) (noting Dr. Lane’s testimony that a round trip from the mouth of the Snohomish River to the Fraser River would have taken two to four weeks). The difference is immaterial, because a trip that arrived in October would still begin and end in fall and because Judge Boldt’s intent in 1975 controls. 30 Dr. Lane’s report and testimony show that the Suquamish were dependent on fishing on the east side of the Puget Sound in the fall and winter. 31 Cf. Lummi Indian Tribe, 235 F.3d at 452 (“If one starts at the mouth of the Fraser River . . . and travels past Orcas and San Juan Islands . . . it is natural to proceed through Admiralty Inlet . . . .” ). UPPER SKAGIT TRIBE v. WASHINGTON 10545 Suquamish’s territory. The language Judge Boldt used to describe Suquamish territory is different from that he used to describe the territory of most tribes. Judge Boldt routinely provided specific geographical definitions as to their boundaries, and specifically identified bays, straits, and island areas that he intended to include. Judge Boldt did not do so in Suquamish’s determination. He included the entire Puget Sound from Vashon Island to the Fraser River. That Judge Boldt did not follow his pattern and delimit Suquamish’s boundaries suggests that he intended the boundaries not to be limited. We are aware of two other territorial determinations in which Judge Boldt used the term Puget Sound without tying it to some geographical anchor — the territory of the Muckleshoot32 and the Lummi33 tribes. In the case of both tribes, however, Judge Boldt did use some limiting language — either “secondarily” or “Northern,” respectively. We have heard appeals regarding both of these determinations. In the case of the Muckleshoot, we determined that the evidence before Judge Boldt demonstrated that the phrase “secondarily in the saltwater of the Puget Sound” was limited to the saltwater immediately adjacent to Muckleshoot’s freshwater fishery.34 In the case of the Lummi, we determined that the “Northern Puget Sound” included the west side of Whidbey Island in the absence of evidence to the contrary.35 We did find that “Northern Puget Sound” excluded the Strait of Juan de Fuca 32 Decision I, 384 F. Supp. at 367 (“Muckleshoot Indians had usual and accustomed fishing places primarily at locations on the upper Puyallup, the Carbon, Struck, White, Green, Cedar and Black rivers . . . and secondarily in the saltwater of Puget Sound.”) (emphasis added). 33 Id. at 360 (“[T]he usual and accustomed fishing places of the Lummi Indans at treaty times included the marine areas of the Northern Puget Sound from the Fraser River south to the present environs of Seattle, and particularly Bellingham Bay.”) (emphasis added). 34 Muckleshoot III, 235 F.3d at 434-35. 35 Lummi Indian Tribe, 235 F.3d at 452. 10546 UPPER SKAGIT TRIBE v. WASHINGTON and the Hood Canal because Judge Boldt had used those terms as distinct from Puget Sound elsewhere in his decision.36 Upper Skagit must show a similar implied limitation. Upper Skagit notes that Possession Sound was not specifically included in the determination of Suquamish’s territory, even though it was in the case of the Tulalip tribe. This silence, however, does not support an inference against Suquamish. It is unquestioned that the Suquamish have a right to fish in Useless Bay, on the west side of Whidbey Island, even though that Bay is not specifically listed in Suquamish’s territory and is in Tulalip’s. Additionally, Possession Sound lies immediately adjacent to the mouth of the Snohomish River, and was thus described as a traditional Suquamish fishing location in Dr. Lane’s report. [10] Upper Skagit also emphasizes the fact that Suquamish’s territory does not include an eastern border. We need not decide whether this argument is correct.37 Determining whether Judge Boldt intended to include specific marine waters within the Suquamish’s territory calls for a case by case examination of the facts to determine whether Judge Boldt “intended something other than [his] apparent meaning.”38 We conclude that it is at least as likely as not that Judge Boldt intended to include Saratoga Passage and Skagit Bay because he had elsewhere identified those waters as being within “the marine waters of the Puget Sound,”39 and because they lie on the natural route between two traditional Suquamish fisheries. 36 Id. at 451-52. 37 One plausible border of “the marine waters of Puget Sound from the northern tip of Vashon Island to the Fraser River” is the land bordering the marine waters. 38 Muckleshoot I, 141 F.3d at 1359. 39 See Decision II, 459 F. Supp. at 1049 ¶ 6 (“The usual and accustomed fishing places of the Swinomish Tribal Community include . . . the marine areas of the northern Puget Sound from the Fraser River south to and including Whidbey, Camano, Fidalgo, Guemes, Samish, Cypress and the UPPER SKAGIT TRIBE v. WASHINGTON 10547 [11] Upper Skagit’s third contention is that United States v. Suquamish Indian Tribe40 controls this case. In Suquamish Indian Tribe, Suquamish attempted to exercise fishing rights on the freshwater river systems to the “east of the Puget Sound” as the successor in interest to the Duwamish tribe.41 We held that the Suquamish had “usual and accustomed fishing places in several areas in the west side of Puget Sound” and were “not entitled to exercise fishing rights on the east side of Puget Sound.”42 Such language, however, “must be read in the light of the facts before [the court].”43 The court in Suquamish Indian Tribe was only confronted with question of whether the Suquamish were successors in interest to the Duwamish.44 The Suquamish had abandoned any independent claim arising out of its own treaty time practices to the waters at issue, so our decision necessarily did not address the question of whether the Suquamish had an independent entitlement to fish there. Additionally, because Suquamish Indian Tribe dealt with the rights of the Suquamish to fish in freshwater river systems to the “east of the Puget Sound,” the decision does not speak to whether the Suquamish have fishing rights in Saratoga Passage or Skagit Bay, waters within the Puget Sound. [12] Finally, Upper Skagit argues that Dr. Lane’s report on San Juan Islands, and including Bellingham Bay and Hale Passage adjacent to Lummi Island.”). It is unquestioned that Saratoga Passage and Skagit Bay are within these marine areas “includ[ed]” within the “northern Puget Sound.” See also id. at 1059 (including Saratoga Passage in the “usual and accustomed marine fishing areas of the Tulalip Tribes of Washington”) (emphasis added). 40 901 F.2d 772 (9th Cir. 1990). 41 Id. at 774 & n.2, 775 (9th Cir. 1990) (emphasis added). 42 Id. at 774, 778. 43 Muckleshoot III, 235 F.3d at 433 (quoting Julian Petroleum Corp. v. Courtney Petroleum Co., 22 F.2d 360, 362 (9th Cir. 1927)). 44 Suquamish Indian Tribe, 901 F.2d at 775. 10548 UPPER SKAGIT TRIBE v. WASHINGTON the Swinomish supports the conclusion that Judge Boldt intended to exclude Saratoga Passage and Skagit Bay from Suquamish’s territory. They base this argument on the fact that Dr. Lane said that certain constricted waterways bordering Saratoga Passage and Skagit Bay were controlled by the Swinomish. This argument is without merit. The fact that one tribe controls a territory does not imply the absence of fishing there by another tribe.45 Indeed, the Suquamish have a treaty reserved fishing right in the Hood Canal, a territory controlled by the Skokomish.46 [13] We conclude that it is at least as likely as not that