Spilyay tymoo., January 24, 2024, Page 2, Image 2

Spilyay
January 24
Page 2
2 positions on Economic Development board
The Warm Springs Economic
Development Corporation is
seeking to fill two positions on
the corporation board of direc-
tors. The positions are both class
II: One tribal member and one
non-tribal member.
Qualified candidates must
be interested in the economic
and social development of the
tribes and its membership, and
possess an expertise in private
industry, finance, banking or some
other field that would benefit the
corporation.
Letters of interest and resumes
of applicants who interested in
serving on the Warm Springs Eco-
nomic Development Board of Di-
rectors should be submitted no
later than 5 p.m. on Wednesday,
January 31. Drop off at the Warm
Springs Economic Development
building addressed to WSED CEO.
Or:
By mail send to: WSED CEO,
4202 Holliday St., PO Box 1186,
Warm Springs OR 97761.
Or send by email to:
jim.souers@wstribes.or
Criminal and credit back-
ground check will be required
and forms can be emailed or
mailed as requested. Information
will be submitted confidentially to
the WSED CEO.
Tribal inclusion part of Forest plan update
Sandra Danzuka/Council office
Earlier this month at Tribal Council, Power and Water
Enterprises and general manager Cathy Ehli, here
represented by Michael Lofting, Power and Water
Controller, presented the tribes a 2024 dividend payment
in the amount of $12 million, accepted on behalf of the
tribes by Council Chairman Jonathan Smith Sr.
How ‘Boldt decision’ 50 years ago
remade Pacific Northwest fishing
It took violent protests and a
decision appealed all the way to the
U.S. Supreme Court to affirm the
tribal right to fish, explicitly stated
in treaties signed by their ancestors
nearly 170 years ago as settlers colo-
nized the Pacific Northwest.
The decision handed down by
U.S. District Court Judge Geor ge
Boldt 50 years ago next month was
the result of sacrifices made by Na-
tive fishers and their families jailed
and beaten while defending these
rights. And yet now another threat
looms over all they fought for : scar-
city of the fish themselves.
Judge George Boldt set the trial,
United States v. Washington, for
August 27, 1973. It lasted three
weeks, with Boldt eventually issu-
ing a ruling early the next year that
affirmed tribal fishing rights.
Attorneys and clients knew this
trial was coming even before the
complaint was filed in September
1970 and already had put in con-
siderable work. The demands of
the case intensified after the filing,
and the action became frenetic dur-
ing the year before trial. All parties
were well prepared when the mo-
ment came.
Tribal members, hoping to pro-
tect fishing rights that were included
in the 1850s treaties, were fearful.
To them, this case was about a
way of life that went back thou-
sands of years—forever, really.
Salmon fishing and all that it stood
for mattered tremendously; it was
at the heart of what it meant to be
Indian: The state meant to take that
away. Would Indians be treated
fairly in this trial that could debili-
tate or bring an end to their way of
life?
The commercial fishing indus-
try also had a lot to lose. It was
taking more than 90-percent of
the salmon, while the tribes were
harvesting 3- to 6-percent, as they
had for decades.
Going into the trial, industry
leaders did not expect the tribes to
be awarded 50 percent of the
catch. That number had been
floated, but lawyers for the United
States had asked for only a “fair
share.” That was less threatening
than 50-percent, but if Boldt did
find for the tribes, whatever
amount he ordered was going to
come mostly out of the current
commercial harvest.
United States v. Washington also
was getting attention from the gen-
eral public—not nearly as much
as it would after the decision was
handed down, but the trial was one
of those cases that people knew
about and kept their eyes on.
People variously worried about
the impact on the economy,
whether Indians would be treated
fairly, and whether special tribal
rights were justified or amounted
to reverse discrimination.
Boldt decision background
In 1974, Judge George Boldt
issued a ruling that affirmed the
fishing rights and tribal sovereignty
of Native nations in Washington
state. The Boldt Decision trans-
formed Indigenous law and re-
source management across the
United States and beyond.
Like Brown v. Board of Education,
the case also brought about far-
reaching societal changes, reinforc-
ing tribal sovereignty and remedy-
ing decades of injustice.
Whatever views people had, at
least the overall setting for the trial
exemplified the kind of dignified
The deadline to comment on the
U.S. Forest Service Northwest For-
est Plan is coming up on February
2. The plan is in regard to the man-
agement of millions of acres of
forest land in the Northwest, includ-
ing Oregon.
The Forest Service will host a
webinar on the proposal from noon
to 1:30 p.m. this Thursday, January
25, followed by a virtual ‘open
house’ from 5-7 p.m. on Thursday,
February 8.
Meanwhile, Oregon federal law-
makers are sponsoring a bill to cre-
ate a partnership between the U.S.
Forest Service and the Confeder-
ated Tribes of Warm Springs to co-
and solemn atmosphere that we
expect when our most important,
challenging decisions are being ad-
dressed and resolved. The trial was
held in a classic federal courtroom
in Tacoma’s historic Court House
Square Building at 1102 A St., a
handsome stone and brick structure,
a full block long, constructed in
1910.
Boldt, always wearing a bow tie
with his robe, was a stickler for civil,
courteous and respectful proceed-
ings.
He made a point of not raising
his voice, and lawyers, witnesses and
others did the same. Occasionally,
given the size of the spacious two-
story room, witnesses and even a few
attorneys would be too soft-spoken
for the court reporter, but a polite
request from the judge to speak a bit
louder would be successful.
Judge Boldt expected lawyers to
avoid personal conflicts with attor-
neys on the other side. A review of
the transcripts shows that there was
virtually no carping, quibbling or
grousing among attorneys during the
trial. This would be a trial to the
court, with no jury.
Boldt gave all attorneys and wit-
nesses a lot of leeway. He regularly
admitted testimony, despite objec-
tions, noting that he would weigh it
for its value.
“Every witness has a right to ex-
plain his answer if he chooses,” he
would say when permitting an ex-
tensive, and sometimes rambling,
answer. Very few exhibits offered
by attorneys were rejected.
The first day of the trial was
dedicated to opening statements.
The attorneys mostly kept their
cards close to their chests. The trial
would produce testimony, and cross-
examination, from many witnesses,
and numerous exhibits.
manage areas of the Mt. Hood
National Forest. The Wy’east Tribal
Resources Restoration Act would
direct the Forest Service to work
with the tribes to create ‘treaty re-
source emphasis zones.’ The zones
would be co-managed by the tribes
and the Forest Service.
The proposed co-management
plan for the Mt. Hood National
As many as 10 attorneys for the
plaintiffs participated at various
points during the trial, but Stuart
Pierson, David Getches and Al
Ziontz were the most active. On
the state side, Larry Coniff and
Earl McGimpsey represented the
Department of Game and the De-
partment of Fisheries, respectively.
In his opening statement,
Pierson, a Special Assistant U.S. At-
torney, recommended on the issue
of a tribal share that Boldt adopt
a “fair share” allocation to tribal
fishers.
He argued that the state should
be allowed to reevaluate tribal fish-
ing only in the limited circumstances
when it “threatens the preserva-
tion of the runs.”
Getches, of the Native Ameri-
can Rights Fund, spoke second
and, like Pierson, asserted that
tribal rights included commercial,
as well as subsistence, uses. He of-
fered a broad perspective: “Not far
from where this courthouse now
stands, approximately 120 years
ago, the first of several treaties ne-
gotiated by the United States of
Forest aims to “enhance tribal
treaty resources, and protect the
reservation from wildfire.”
Regarding the Northwest For-
est Plan: formal comments must
be submitted electronically via the
comment page by February 2. The
comment page can be found at the
website of the Forest Service-Re-
gion 6.
While comment page submis-
sions are strongly preferred, hard
copy letters may be also be sub-
mitted to the following ad-dress:
Regional Forester, Region 6, U.S.
Forest Service - Attn: Northwest
Forest Plan Comments, 1220 SW
3rd Ave., Portland, OR, 97204.
America with Indian tribes was
signed. It was language within that
treaty concerning fishing rights that
this trial is all about.…
“One party comes with a right
secured under the supreme law of
the land reserved by them 120 years
ago. The other party comes with
rights that are really privileges, privi-
leges that run from the state to the
fishermen.
“Today the Indian fishing right
is very much alive, but it is in
chains, and we ask this court to
emancipate those fishing rights, and
in doing this, we don’t ask the court
for any radical judicial legislation.”
Coniff, assistant attorney gen-
eral and the most combative of all
of the lawyers, argued that the
tribes did not have any treaty rights
at all:
“If there is such evidence of such
an exclusive right, then I would ask
the court to carefully review the evi-
dence in this record and ask the ques-
tion, first, then, why after 120 years
has it just been discovered? Two, if it
really exists at all.”
BOLDT continues on 5