Final Paper Outline and Source List

OUTLINE

I. Introduction

a. In 1984 Initiative 456 appeared on the ballot. The Initiative was passed and declared that natural resources, including land, water, timber, fish and game should be the management responsibility of the state alone to ensure conservation, as well as to protect private property rights.[footnoteRef:1] [1: League of Seattle and King County, “State Ballot Issues” Municipal News 73, no. 10 (November 6, 1984): 7.]

b. Initiative 456 was, in part, a response to the court decision United States v. Washington 384 F. Supp. 312 (W.D. Wash. 1974), aff’d, 520 F.2d 676 (9th Cir. 1975), otherwise known as the Boldt Decision.

Thesis Draft:

Initiative 456 is historically significant because it is representative of the struggle between the State of Washington, the fishing industry, and the Indian Tribes in the years following the Boldt Decision.

· The initiative was more than a story about fish, but was a manifestation of the backlash against Indian’s recent successes in asserting rights guaranteed to them by old and sometimes long ignored treaties.[footnoteRef:2] [2: Reid T.R., “Indian Fishing Rights Challenged by Washington State Initiative.” Washington Post, September 19, 1984. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1984/09/19/indian-fishing-rights-challenged-by-washington-state-initiative/7ec74193-ea42-424c-944e-9d2b3c746bf4/?utm_term=.da2380a97c44.]

II. Background - The Boldt Decision

a. In 1974 Judge George Boldt ruled that the Medicine Creek Treaty was negotiated between two sovereign nations. Among many other issues, the court ruled that according to the treaties the Tribes were entitled to a fair and equitable share of the catch of steelhead salmon.

i. Judge Boldt held that the Tribes were entitled to up to one-half of each run of fish that passed through their usual and accustomed fishing grounds. [footnoteRef:3] [3: Alvin J. Ziontz. A Lawyer in Indian Country. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2009, 123. ]

b. Brief Medicine Creek Treaty Background

i. The language of the decision relied on the language within the Treaties. The Medicine Creek Treaty was signed by a group of Western Washington Tribes in 1857. The treat stated that the tribes had the “right to taking fish at usual and accustomed grounds in common with all citizens of the territory.”

c. Important events following the Boldt Decision:

i. 1979 – U.S. Supreme Court Upholds the decision

ii. 1994 – U.S. District Court extends Boldt’s 50-50 formula, granting tribes right to harvest shellfish on privately owned lands.

iii. Formation of the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission.

III. Challenge and Backlash to the Boldt Decision

a. “When Judge Boldt’s decision was released to the public there was an angry outcry from non-Indian fishing groups.”[footnoteRef:4] [4: Alvin J. Ziontz. A Lawyer in Indian Country. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2009, 124.]

b. Many believed that the Boldt decision was disastrous for the State of Washington and thought that unfairly gave the tribes too large of share of fish.

i. The tribes were met with conflict and opposition to their fishing as well as their co-management rights.[footnoteRef:5] [5: Ott, Jennifer. “Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission.” posted March 28, 2011, http://www.historylink.org/File/9786.]

c. One key area of conflict was the fishing and commercialization of steelhead.

i. State law prohibited the commercialization and sale of steelhead. That prohibition did not apply to the tribes who have federally-secured treaty fishing rights.[footnoteRef:6] [6: Secretary of State of the State of Washington, “1984 Voters and Candidates Pamphlet,” 2, https://www.sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/voters'%20pamphlet%201984.pdf. ]

d. Boldt’s decision took effect when the salmon population and annual catch was in decline. Many parties blamed the decline on the Indian’s enhanced fishing rights.

i. The declining fish populations sparked citizens to launch an initiative campaign.

IV. Initiative 456

a. The intent of Initiative 456 was to petition the United States Congress to provide as a matter of federal law that steelhead would be classified as a national game fish. Further, the Initiative would declare it to be state policy that natural resources be the management responsibility of the state alone. Finally, it would declare that all citizens have equal rights, but that such declaration does not change the federally secured treaty rights.

b. Jack Metcalf a Republican Senator wrote the Initiative.

i. In an interview Metcalf explained the intentions for the Initiative "Here you have one class of citizens with a special right to this resource," he said. "And the only way you get this right is to be born into it. I thought we had banished the inherited nobility from this country."[footnoteRef:7] [7: Reid T.R., “Indian Fishing Rights Challenged by Washington State Initiative.” Washington Post, September 19, 1984. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1984/09/19/indian-fishing-rights-challenged-by-washington-state-initiative/7ec74193-ea42-424c-944e-9d2b3c746bf4/?utm_term=.da2380a97c44.]

c. Initiative 456 was filed by Ellis Lind of Redmond and the Salmon-Steelhead Preservation Action for Washington (SPAWN). It received 201,188 signatures.[footnoteRef:8] [8: Washington Ban on Commercial Fishing of Steelhead Trought, Initiative 456 (1984). https://ballotpedia.org/Washington_Ban_on_Commercial_Fishing_of_Steelhead_Trout,_Initiative_456_(1984)]

i. SPAWN’s origins lie in the backlash to the Boldt Decision.

d. The initiative appeared on the 1984 ballot and received 53.16% of the vote.

V. Impact of Initiative 456 and Tribal Fishing Rights today

a. As required by the Washington Constitution, it became law - Chapter 77.110 RCW.

b. According to many the Initiative would not actually have much of a legal impact.

c. Culvert cases

i. Continuing efforts to restore habitat to ensure that there is adequate salmon.[footnoteRef:9] [9: Daniel Jack Chasan, ]

ii. Continuing legal action to ensure that state law is consistent with what the treaties promised.

VI. Conclusion

a. Although the legal impacts of Initiative 456 may have not been significant the initiative and the effort to get the measure on the ballot was demonstrative of the larger backlash against tribes after the Boldt Decision.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Sources

League of Seattle and King County, “State Ballot Issues” Municipal News 73, no. 10 (November 6, 1984): 7.

United States v. Washington, 384 F. Supp. 312 (W.D. Wash. 1974), aff’d, 520 F.2d 676 (9th Cir. 1975).