•  
  •  
 

David Getches

Abstract

In the mid-nineteenth century the Indians of the Northwest were pressured by government agents into signing treaties ceding most of the land they had historically occupied to the United States. In each treaty, besides reserving small tracts of land for themselves, the Indians specifically reserved the right to fish "at all usual and accustomed grounds and stations." Because the lands which the Indians were permitted to reserve were selected so as "not to interfere with existing [non-Indian] claims, or with the progress of settlements," many traditional fishing places were located outside the reservations. The Indians' grudging acceptance of the treaties was obtained only by insuring their right to continue fishing at such places without interference. The State of Washington assumes that if conservation purposes are to be served, regulation must be done by the Departments of Game and Fisheries. This assumption is based upon an apparent belief that Indians are incapable or unwilling to limit and regulate their own fishing in order to insure the perpetuation of the fish resource. But historically, and to the present day, Indians have practiced conservation in their fishing and have tribal fishing regulations. Undoubtedly, a desire to allocate fish among non-Indian sport and commercial fishermen who figure importantly in Washington's economy is a factor. The conviction that Indians are incompetent to manage the fishery and lack the will to control the fishery for the benefit of non-Indians reveals a callosity not only to the legal rights of the Indians but to their culture—that is, to the fact that they are different. The thesis of Uncommon Controversy is that the battle to preserve Indian fishing rights in western Washington is not about conservation; rather, it is about "the attitude of the whole society toward difference."

First Page

265

Download

Share

COinS