Opinion ID: 771494
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Dr. Lane's Reports

Text: 29
30 The Muckleshoot contend that Exhibit USA-27b is the key document for the purpose of ascertaining the intended scope of the phrase secondarily in the saltwater of Puget Sound. The Muckleshoot first argue that the report's statement that there was some trolling for salmon in salt water when families descended the rivers to get the shell fish supplies on the beaches of the sound is regional in scope and broader than Elliott Bay. Judge Boldt adapted the phrase on the beachesof Puget Sound, the Muckleshoot contend, to mean in the saltwater of Puget Sound to conform with the description of the trolling in Dr. Lane's report and to emphasize the inclusion of waters in Puget Sound and not merely the beaches. The Muckleshoot also argue that the phrase the beaches of Puget Sound has a plain meaning which is broader than Elliott Bay and that Dr. Lane did not mention Elliott Bay at all in her description of the Muckleshoot's saltwater U&A. 31 Addressing the last point first, the lack of a discussion of Elliott Bay in Dr. Lane's report works against the Muckleshoot's argument, not for it. Dr. Lane's report lists the saltwater U&As for those tribes that she believed engaged in significant saltwater fishing. The only tribes for which there is no mention of specific saltwater fisheries are three upriver tribes, including the Muckleshoot. This feature of the report suggests two conclusions -(1) the phrase on the beaches of Puget Sound was used because there was no established (i.e. U&A) saltwater fishing location anywhere and (2) the omission of Puget Sound from Dr. Lane's findings in Exhibit USA-20, which lists the principal fisheries of the Muckleshoot's ancestors, was not inadvertent or inconsequential. Rather, it suggests that Puget Sound was not a principal saltwater fishing ground. 32 More importantly, all references in Dr. Lane's report on Muckleshoot saltwater fishing only pertain to saltwater fisheries in the Duwamish drainage system. The Duwamish empties only into Elliott Bay. Nowhere in Dr. Lane's report is there a reference to the Muckleshoot's ancestors fishing on a drainage system that empties anywhere outside Elliott Bay. 33 The only other reference to saltwater in Dr. Lane's report is the statement, in Exhibit USA-27b and listed in Finding 76, In addition, there was some trolling for salmon in salt water when families descended upon the rivers to get shell fish supplies on the beaches of the sound. This statement does not establish that the Muckleshoot's ancestors had any saltwater U&A outside Elliott Bay. The rivers that the families descended upon are those referenced in the preceding sentence -the Puyallup, Carbon, Stuck, White, Green, and Cedar. At the time of the treaty, the White, Green, and Cedar rivers flowed into the then-existent Black River which became the Duwamish River and emptied into Elliott Bay. This is consistent with Dr. Lane's use of the term Duwamish drainage system throughout her report. The beaches of Puget Sound that the Muckleshoot's ancestors would reach after descending the White, Green, and Cedar rivers were the beaches of Elliott Bay and those beaches alone. 34 Of the remaining rivers, the Stuck flowed south from the White River and into the Puyallup and the Carbon River was a tributary of the upper Puyallup. At treaty time, the lower Puyallup was within the territory of the Puyallup Tribe andthe Muckleshoot's ancestors could not have descended all the way down the Puyallup River without entering Puyallup territory. Because these fishing grounds on the beaches of Puget Sound are within the exclusive territory of the present-day Puyallup Reservation, the Muckleshoot cannot claim them as part of their U&A territory. 3 Thus the only referenced rivers that are not part of the Duwamish drainage system cannot yield the Muckleshoot saltwater U&A rights. 4 35
36 Dr. Lane's report, cited as Exhibit USA-27a, explains that the villages of the Muckleshoot's ancestors were only occupied by the entire village group during the winter season. At other times of the year, portions of the population de-camped in different directions to secure food and other supplies. Judge Boldt recognized this when he wrote, [M]ost groups claimed autumn fishing use rights in the waters near to their winter villages. Spring and summer fishing areas were often more distantly located and often were shared with other groups from other villages. Washington, 384 F. Supp. at 353. The facts before Judge Boldt show that the Muckleshoot's ancestors did not regularly fish outside Elliott Bay, even during the spring and summer fishing seasons. 37 First, the above statements contained in Exhibit USA-27b were not specifically referenced in Finding 76, so their relevance should not be overemphasized. More importantly, the evidence cited by the Muckleshoot does not establish that any seasonal saltwater fishing areas beyond Elliott Bay were usedby their ancestors with enough regularity to establish them as U&A grounds. See also Washington, 384 F. Supp. at 351 (Finding 14) (Marine waters were also used as thoroughfares for travel by Indians who trolled en route. Such occasional and incidental trolling was not considered to make the marine waters traveled thereon the usual and accustomed fishing grounds of the traveling Indians.) (internal exhibit references omitted). 38
39 The Muckleshoot claim that Appendix 2 to Dr. Lane's report, which contains excerpts from T.T. Waterman's manuscript describing field work done from 1917 through 1920, contains information on sites beyond Elliott Bay where the Muckleshoot's ancestors fished. But the excerpts in Appendix 2 can only be understood with reference to Waterman's findings in Appendix 1. In his listing of Duwamish Villages on the eastern side of the Sound, Waterman lumped together both upriver and downriver (or saltwater) tribes. Dr. Lane, however, made a distinction between the two groups, finding that the downriver tribes were not ancestors of the Muckleshoot. Thus, it cannot be said that the sites listed in Appendix 2 were fishing grounds of the Muckleshoot's ancestors. 40 Moreover, Appendix 1 contains a list, selected by Dr. Lane from Waterman's manuscripts, of place names used by treaty time bands, including the ancestors of tribes other than the Muckleshoot. The list does not include any saltwater sites. Finally, Appendix 1 contains a map of Muckleshoot fishing cities. This map only includes sites on rivers; there are no saltwater sites marked. Given this background, that Appendix 2 does not specifically identify the Muckleshoot ancestor sites, and that the evidence contained in Appendix 2 is only briefly mentioned in Dr. Lane's reports, the Muckleshoot have failed to demonstrate that the evidence established treaty-time saltwater U&As beyond Elliott Bay. 41 The Muckleshoot also claim that another appendix to Dr. Lane's report, a statement by the anthropologist Marian Smith that people from the upper Puyallup valley made special trips to the Sound in the neighborhood of what is now Redondo Beach to catch devil fish, supports their reading of Finding 76. The excerpt states that the devil fish, i.e. octopi, were not fished. Rather, [t]hey were picked up while asleep along the shore . . . . Consequently, the excerpt does not establish a basis for a saltwater U&A at Redondo Beach even if the Muckleshoot's ancestors engaged in this form of collection.