I was just looking up your SC case and knowing that they take only cases that will support a lot of citizens, realized that the pesticides the farmers use DO effect billions? of people. Just like the hormones and stuff for cattle providing billions of hamburgers are very important, too.
Glad you were interested - here’s much of the legal history. For a proper understanding of the background not only must the Constitution be read, but the 1854 Treaty with the Nisqualli (Tribe) and the 1855 Treaty of Neah Bay (Makah Tribe)
1854 Treaty with the Nisqualli (Tribe): It is upon this treaty which the present-day Washington State Tribes make their claims to whaling and fishing rights. Article 4 gives them this “right” stating both to be “in common with all” citizens. While all citizens can fish for salmon, none are permitted to go whaling.
1) PUYALLUP TRIBE v. DEPT. OF GAME, 391 U.S. 392 (1968)
U.S. Supreme Court
PUYALLUP TRIBE v. DEPT. OF GAME, 391 U.S. 392 (1968) 391 U.S. 392
PUYALLUP TRIBE v. DEPARTMENT OF GAME OF WASHINGTON ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF WASHINGTON.
No. 247.
Argued March 25-26, 1968.
Decided May 27, 1968.
This ruling gave the Tribes the right to fish with non-traditional gear like gill nets, set nets and purse seines off-reservation.
2) WASHINGTON GAME DEPT. v. PUYALLUP TRIBE, 414 U.S. 44 (1973)
U.S. Supreme Court
WASHINGTON GAME DEPT. v. PUYALLUP TRIBE, 414 U.S. 44 (1973)
414 U.S. 44
DEPARTMENT OF GAME OF WASHINGTON v. PUYALLUP TRIBE ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF WASHINGTON
No. 72-481.
Argued October 10, 1973
Decided November 19, 1973*
This ruling gave the tribes access to in-river fisheries, but provided that the state was not obligated to subsidize them with planted fish.
3) United States v. State of Washington, 384 F. Supp. 312 (W.D. Wash. 1974) - AKA the Boldt Decision
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington - 384 F. Supp. 312 (W.D. Wash. 1974)
March 22, 1974
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff,
Quinault Tribe of Indians on its own behalf and on behalf of the Queets Band of Indians, et al., Intervenor-Plaintiffs, v. STATE OF WASHINGTON, Defendant,
Thor C. Tollefson, Director, Washington State Department of Fisheries, et al., Intervenor-Defendants.
Civ. No. 9213.
United States District Court, W. D. Washington at Tacoma.
February 12, 1974.
On Question Per Reconsideration Motion March 22, 1974.
Injunction March 22, 1974.
Gave the Tribes 80% of the salmon with the remaining 20% to be split 60-40 between escapement and non-Indians.
4) PUYALLUP TRIBE v. WASHINGTON GAME DEPT., 433 U.S. 165 (1977)
U.S. Supreme Court
PUYALLUP TRIBE v. WASHINGTON GAME DEPT., 433 U.S. 165 (1977)
433 U.S. 165
PUYALLUP TRIBE, INC., ET AL. v. DEPARTMENT OF GAME OF WASHINGTON ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF WASHINGTON
No. 76-423.
Argued April 18, 1977
Decided June 23, 1977
This ruling rejected Tribal claims to exclusive fishing rights to salmon and maked catch accounting voluntary.
4) PURSE SEINE VESSEL OWNERS ASSOCIATION,
Puget Sound Gillnetters Association, Frank Marinkovich, Philip Sutherland, and Wallace K. Green,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, vs. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Marine Fisheries Service, the United States Coast Guard, the United States Department of the Interior, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 77-2968
United States Court Of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
584 F.2d 931, 1978 U.S. App. Decision
October 26, 1978
5) WASHINGTON v. FISHING VESSEL ASSN., 443 U.S. 658 (1979)
WASHINGTON ET AL. v. WASHINGTON STATE COMMERCIAL PASSENGER FISHING VESSEL
ASSOCIATION ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF WASHINGTON
No. 77-983.
Argued February 28, 1979.
Decided July 2, 1979.
From this single, little-known Court decision flowed all the modern notions of ‘Tribal rights’, ‘Tribal Sovereignty’ as well as worldwide ‘native activism’. Had the PSGA lawyers been able to argue their case, instead of having to spend their 15 minutes rebutting the State of Washington, the outcome might have been entirely different. See the Dissenting Opinions of Justices Powell, Stewart and Rehnquist.
The Boldt Decision was VACATED, i.e. overturned. The court “determined” the phrase “in common with” to mean up to 50% of the harvest was due to the Tribes, with escapement still coming out of the Non-Indian share. In one decision, all Americans not belonging to a Treaty Tribe were declared second-class citizens ... This ruling still stands, only modified to give the Tribes still more access to salt-water shellfish
See:
1) U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. STATE OF WASHINGTON No. 95-35442 No. 95-35442 CV-89-00003-ER
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.; (various tribes)
Plaintiffs-Appellees, v STATE OF WASHINGTON, et al., Defendants, and WASHINGTON HARVEST DIVERS ASSOCIATION;
EDWARD KNUDSON; WASHINGTON DUNGENESS CRAB FISHERMEN’S ASSOCIATION; ERNEST SUMMERS, Intervenors-Appellants.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Edward J. Rafeedie, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted November 14, 1995 - Seattle, Washington
Filed June 12, 1996
2) U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
USA v STATE OF WASHINGTON
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, (various tribes) v. STATE OF WASHINGTON, (various tribes)
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Barbara J. Rothstein, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted December 5, 1995—Seattle, Washington
Filed October 23, 1996
Basically abrogated the Treaty with the Nisqualli for Shellfish harvest rights.
The overall result has been an impoverishment throughout most of rural America.