Recently I educated myself on the Boldt decision. What the hell was he thinking. I have been reading and posting on this board and have never seenn this topic come up. I would like to hear a few differnt takes.

If you don't know what it is-----

In 1976 Supreme Court Judge Boldt aloted 50% of all fish and game to the native americans.
That ment 50% of all fish to less that 1% of the population. This was a 207 page decision so that is just the tip of the ice berg.

Marge,

As gently as I can, I suggest you return to complete your education regarding the Boldt Decision. George Boldt was a Federal District Court judge in Tacoma, WA, not a Supreme Court Justice. And his decision in U.S. v Washington was February 1974, not 1976. Boldt’s decision was generally upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1979.

If you had been reading this BB for any length of time, you would have seen this topic come up several, and probably numerous, times. Hence, I’m wondering if your post is actually a troll. In the event it isn’t, you may find the following of interest.

U.S. v Washington is silent on game. It is a fishing decision, and it does not apply to Native Americans in general. It pertains to selected treaty Indian Tribes that signed what are known as the Stevens treaties of 1854 and 1855 that contain language specific to reserved fishing rights.

The federal courts have consistently upheld that although treaty Tribes ceded much land to the U.S. government, they reserved fishing, hunting, and gathering rights in all usual and accustomed areas in common with the citizens of the territory. Boldt interpreted this to mean, using definitions from Black’s law dictionary, that the tribes reserved the right to 50% of the “harvestable” fish from their usual and accustomed fishing areas. The fact that Native Americans were slightly more than 2% of the general population in Washington State in 1974 is irrelevant. The treaties are held by tribes and the United States government, not individual Indians, so the fish harvest is to be equally divided among treaty tribes and non-treaty citizens, regardless of the number of Indians in the population. And since treaties are described as the supreme law of the land by the U.S. Constitution, all attempts to nullify the Boldt Decision have failed entirely.

Subsequent to the Boldt Decision, Washington State made an independent agreement with treaty Tribes regarding game hunting, recognizing that they would inevitably lose if they contested hunting rights in the court system. In all likelihood the State got a better deal through the negotiation than would have been achieved through the courts.

The State decided to contest shellfish gathering rights of the Tribes, and, as knowledgeable observers predicted, lost handily. The federal courts again upheld the tribes rights to gather half the harvestable shellfish.

Perhaps you’re beginning to see a pattern here. I think it’s worth noting that the federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court has generally held in favor of treaty Indian Tribes consistently since about 1905. I’m sure the state has won a few minor decisions, but I cannot honestly remember any. You ask what the hell Judge Boldt was thinking. Well, considering that he had a reputation as a very conservative judge, and that he told the tribes he didn’t think they had a very good case - before he heard it - it seems Boldt was thinking about applying the law and upholding the letter of the law, regardless of whether the outcome was popular or unpopular. The backlash to Boldt’s decision was unprecedented by any but some of the more unpopular civil rights decisions of the 1960s. I suppose that is what makes it such a landmark legal case in this country.

Happy studying!

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Salmo,
Do you know if the Boldt decision mandates use of the MSY model, as has been claimed lately on the web?
Thanks,
Stinkfoot

Marge:
Just read your post, I've been out for a few days.
Along with the other facts worth consideration, The Boldt decision was appealed by several tribes because he was suffering from Alzheimer's, (the case lost) and was appealed because he was married to an Indian, therefore legally he should have excused himself from the case.
I've been doing my own research, but I haven't been able to get a copy of the decision itself. Perhaps you could steer me to a site where I can find it. Thus far all I have is the treaties, and a couple of the more recent decisions.

'Head hunter,
The decision rendered by Judge Boldt that was (successfully) appealed by several tribes had nothing to do with what is generally thought of, and referred to, as the "Boldt Decision" (that is, the decision involving treaty fishing rights and the allocation of harvestable fish). It was an entirely different case and involved recognition of the legal existence of several tribes. In this particular case Boldt's finding was that these tribes had no legal existence. His ruling was overturned years later and the primary basis for the final decision was that he had, in his later years, begun to suffer from Alzheimer's disease.