Opinion ID: 387939
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Rivers East of the Hoko

Text: 8 The finding that the Lower Elwha Tribe controlled fishing east of the Hoko River rests primarily on the testimony of Dr. Barbara Lane, an anthropologist. She testified that the treaty-time Elwha occupied the area east of the Hoko and considered it their territory. 9 She stated that the prevailing conception of tribal territory among Northwest Indians comprised the right to exclude members of other tribes. 4 She conceded that Makahs fished east of the Hoko, but maintained that this fishing, to be consistent with the Indian conception of tribal territory, had to be with the express permission of the Elwha or by virtue of intermarriage. 10 The Makah Tribe denies that its fierce ancestors would have deigned to ask permission to fish in Elwha territory and contends that the district court's determination is wholly unsupported by the record because the court relied on an anthropological principle rather than specific facts. 11 The Makah contention is without merit. Historical evidence of tribal custom is a proper basis for judicial conclusions about the present effect of Indian treaty provisions. See United States v. Top Sky, 547 F.2d 486, 487 (9th Cir. 1976). Here, it may be the only probative evidence available. 5 12 The Makah point to an incident reported by a nineteenth century journalist, James Swan, in which several Makah fishermen went fishing in Elwha territory and beheaded the Elwha Indians who tried to stop them. 6 The significance of this incident is unclear, and it is not necessarily inconsistent with Lane's testimony that only the Elwha had a recognized right to fish in Elwha territory.