Here are the new materials in United States v. Washington (W.D. Wash.), subproceeding 19-01:
Prior post here.
Here are the materials in United States v. Washington (W.D. Wash.), subproceeding no. 19-01:
Download Court’s letter opinion in re: Schuyler v. Unsworth & Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, Thurston County Cause No. 14-2-02373-9 here.
A member of the Upper Skagit Tribe filed an action in Superior Court for declaratory relief on certain tribal hunting and fishing rights guaranteed by the Treaty of Point Elliot. However, the Court held that the case affects the rights of the Tribe and therefore the case must be dismissed if it cannot be joined within 90 days.
Here is the Ninth Circuit’s (crabby) opinion in Upper Skagit Tribe v. Washington.
The key holding:
We conclude that it is at least as likely as not that Judge Boldt meant what he said; the Suquamish treaty territory “include[s] the marine waters of Puget Sound from the northern tip of Vashon Island to the Fraser River.” This broad, unlimited fishery is what Dr. Lane described in her report and testimony. Dr. Lane stated that marine fisheries “are far more difficult to delimit than fresh waters.” She repeatedly underlined that her report did not, and could not, list all of the usual and accustomed fishing locations of the Suquamish. She noted that the Suquamish had more limited resources in their home area than most tribes, and thus had to travel more extensively to fish.
Dr. Lane said that she had no documentary evidence that the Suquamish fished in the San Juan Islands, but nonetheless found it likely that they did so. Judge Boldt agreed, deciding in the absence of any specific evidence that the Haro and Rosario Straits were part of the Suquamish traditional fishing grounds. This demonstrates a lack of specific evidence would not have precluded Judge Boldt from including Skagit Bay and Saratoga Passage in Suquamish’s territory.
And why we think the court is being crabby: