Opinion ID: 2820496
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Western Contested Waters

Text: As with the eastern contested waters, the Tulalip must “show that there was no evidence before Judge Boldt that the Suquamish fished . . . or traveled through” the western contested waters. See id. The Tulalip failed to meet that burden here because the record contains evidence that the Suquamish fished in these waters. Dr. Lane explained in a Suquamish-specific report that the Suquamish territory included “possibly. . . the west side of Whidbey Island. It is difficult at this time to establish the precise nature of Suquamish use of the west coast of Whidbey Island.”5 While Dr. Lane added that “there appears to be no clear evidence of Suquamish winter villages on the west side of Whidbey Island,” she reported elsewhere that the “Suquamish travelled [sic] to Whidbey Island to fish.” Moreover, there is other evidence supporting the Suquamish’s use of the western contested waters. Dr. Lane explained generally that “[t]he deeper saltwater areas, the Sound, the straits, and the open sea, served as public thoroughfares, and as such, were used as fishing areas by anyone travelling [sic] through such waters.” As indicated by the plain text of the Suquamish’s U&A, the Suquamish traveled from “the marine waters of Puget Sound from the northern tip of Vashon Island to the Fraser River.” Decision II, 459 F. Supp. at 1049. When traveling from Vashon Island to the Fraser River, the Suquamish would have passed through the waters west of 5 Dr. Lane cited two treaty-time accounts: one from Achilles de Harley, who mentioned that the “Soquamish” occupied the west side of Whidbey Island in 1849, and one from George Gibbs, who wrote in 1854 that the Snohomish and Skagit tribes occupied Whidbey Island, but omitted the Suquamish. 14 TULALIP TRIBES V. SUQUAMISH INDIAN TRIBE Whidbey Island, and likely would have fished there while traveling. This general evidence, too, constitutes some evidence before Judge Boldt and supports the district court’s determination that Judge Boldt did not intend to exclude these contested bay areas from Suquamish’s U&A. Therefore, we hold that the Tulalip did not meet its burden to demonstrate that there was no evidence before Judge Boldt supporting Suquamish fishing or traveling through the western contested waters. See Upper Skagit, 590 F.3d at 1023.