Tribal wars train script3/16/2024 ![]() Kendrick: So flash forward to today, what does the Boldt decision mean to people now? And that initial ruling also required the state and the Tribes to co-manage the fishery. He considered 50% of the returning fish their fair share. Judge Boldt was apparently quite taken by this. The defense was arguing that it no longer was, but the tribes disagreed and many of the witnesses also wore traditional clothing to court and spoke their Indigenous languages there, to make the point that they had not abandoned these ways. It seems Judge Boldt put a premium on the value of tribal culture.īecause, according to a new book called Treaty Justice by historian Charles Wilkinson, Judge Boldt was very focused during this trial on the extent to which salmon and fishing were central to tribal cultures and their way of life in Washington. ![]() The tribes were simply arguing for their fair share, along with the U.S. How did the judge come to this conclusion? ![]() Kendrick: Wow, half of the fish, even though they were not half of the population. His ruling, which recognized the tribes rights to half the state's fish, in their usual and accustomed areas. He's said to have had it ready sooner, but he wanted to make a point because Lincoln was known for abolishing slavery, and he felt this was on par with that. Pailthorp: That's right, and so much so that Judge Boldt pointedly handed down this decision so it would coincide with the birthday of Abraham Lincoln. Kendrick: So this really was a civil rights issue. Attorney joining 20 treaty tribes and taking Washington state to court, to sue for protection of tribal fishing rights. So that standoff in 1970, was the culmination of dozens of 'fish-ins' that led to the U.S. Bennett told me she fought back, got arrested along with about 60 others, and was ultimately facing the possibility of 35 years in prison - all because they were trying to defend their fishing rights. And there was a huge standoff with guns, knives, tear gas and clubs. She set up a camp beneath what is now the Fishing Wars Memorial Bridge on a highly visible part of the Puyallup River. So Bennett was among the activists who began turning arrests into media events, by making them highly public and alerting the press. It was also the general public, harassing people, vandalizing their gear. Pailthorp: And it wasn't just the game wardens. I mean, you'd be amazed at the weapons they had." And they crossed deputized, like an army. Ramona Bennett (clip): "Anytime any of our people went fishing, here'd come the game wardens. She described what it was like on her home river, the Puyallup, in the 1960s. I learned a lot about this by sitting with Puyallup elder Ramona Bennett, who was elected as her tribe's Chairwoman in 1971. In fact, they routinely harassed tribal members and often brutally tried to prevent them from fishing. So even though all the treaties between the European settlers and the Indigenous tribes specifically promised fishing rights, in exchange for land that the tribes had given up, for decades, state officials didn't honor that promise. ![]() And the fishing wars are said to have started in 1945 with the first arrest of Nisqually fishing rights activist Billy Frank Jr, who was arrested for fishing at age 14 on his home river. KNKX Environment reporter Bellamy Pailthorp: Right. KNKX Environment Reporter Bellamy Pailthorp is here to discuss the case, then and now.īellamy, let's start with how the Boldt decision came about. The Boldt decision is now hailed as one of the 20th century's most important civil rights cases. It affirmed tribal fishing rights that were promised in the treaties signed throughout the Northwest in the 1850s. KNKX Morning Edition host Kirsten Kendrick: 50 years ago today, Judge George Boldt issued a ruling that transformed many lives in Washington state.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |