Originally Posted By: Larry B
Originally Posted By: Carcassman
One of the earliest decisions made by the Supremes was that Tribal fishing rights included access across private property to fish, including erection of temporary structures to catch and process fish. If memory serves, this decision was handed down in the late 1800s or early 1900s.

I don't believe that they can make permanent alterations, but could probably do a temporary launch annually, if that was necessary to access U&A. The QIN may be your friend in this argument.


I believe it was the Rafeedie decision which established that treaty tribe members could harvest clams on private tidelands within their U&A but with certain conditions attached to include not crossing uplands and providing advance notice to those property owners.

So far no publicized conflicts on the beaches that I have read about so the judicial effort to balance private property rights with treaty rights seems to be working.


My buddy lives on Case Inlet and received a letter from the tribe they were going to harvest clams on half his beach.
I can’t recall exactly how it went down, but instead of the tribe harvesting the clams he had a private party do it which paid him for the clams. Some of those funds then had to go to the tribe.
If I see him while I’m fishing this weekend, I’ll ask him how everything worked.
SF
_________________________
Go Dawgs!
Founding Member - 2025 Pink Plague Opposition Party
#coholivesmatter