Lummi Tribe

It appears that the Lummi Nation is trying to expand there fishing areas. This is one of several objections (see below) that have been popping up lately. I have no idea if the State is doing anything or taking the approach that it is up to the tribes to work it out. This could be something to watch. There are only a few explanations that I can think of. One, the tribe wants to get a foot hold into the area so it can try to take a bigger slice of the tribal allocations next year, or Two, they have run out of resources in their area and find it necessary to move out into the straight. I am confused a bit as I am wondering whether they are trying to claim part of the other tribes share, or if they are just keeping part of their already allocated share. It makes me worried that if the state stays out of the conflict, they will just take what they think is their share, with the other tribes taking what they can with neither side curtailing their share based off what the other is taking. In the sportsman or commercial fisheries will simply get cut out and there are not enough left for a nontribal fishery. It would be nice to think they can work it out and not take too many, but since the other tribes are asking the state to do something, it appears that they are taking the approach that this is the State's responsibility. If the State does nothing, they may argue, then the State can give up its own share. Since the State refuses to sue, we get left with what ever is left over, if anything.






WEBTOFAX 3228809A001.008 30AUG19 18:32/16:32 EST FROM: 52777145 POINT-NO-POINT TREATY COUNCIL TO: 3509022158 ATTN: WDFW TRIBAL REGS
Notice of Objection
Filing Organization: Point No Point Treaty Council
To: Merle Jefferson, Fisheries Program Director; Lummi Nation
Date Adopted: August 30, 2019
We received the Lummi Nation's Regulation 2019-44B, governing fisheries for sea urchins in Shellfish Management and Catch Reporting Areas 23A, 23B and 25A. On behalfof the Port Gamble S'Klallam and the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribes, we must object to this and any future Lummi regulation that may include these Management Areas or Management Areas 23C, 23D, and 29.
On numerous occasions in the past, we have objected to Lummi fishing regulations in Management and Catch Reporting Area 23A, 23B and 25A on the basis that these areas lie within the Strait of Juan de Fuca. United States v. Lummi Indian Tribe, 235 F.3d 443 (9th Cir. 2000) ("Lummi I") affirmed that the usual and accustomed fishing areas of the Lummi Nation do not include the Strait of Juan de Fuca.
For this reason, we request that this regulation be amended to exclude Catch Reporting Areas 23A, 23B and 25A from the Lummi Nation's sea urchin fishing regulation, and that future shellfish regulations be written to cover only those areas that have been found to lie within the Tribe's currently adjudicated U&A.
Thank you for your attention in this matter.
Randy S. Harder Executive Director
Point No Point Treaty Council 19472 Powder Hill Place NE, Suite 210 Poulsbo, WA 98370

U&A was defined by the Boldt Court proceedings; the Feds (I believe) even produced maps that clearly outlined each Tribe's U&A. That said, if a tribe develops data (primarily archaeological but perhaps also historical) they can take it to Federal Court. Tulalip did this in the 80s, as I recall.

The State's only action would be to cite fishermen who were fishing outside of the U&A defined by the courts. I don't think WDFW does this any more. The individual tribe would handle their response.

One possibility is that a tribe with U&A invites an outside tribe to fish. In which case, somebody else with U&A there might invite Lummi in.

Past objections had several tribes listed. But the question still is out there. On whose quota are they fishing? If no one stops them, then some one would have to cut their share. If no one does, is the State going to do something, or will they just roll over and cut it out of the non-tribal share.

The share is, or was, Indian. No tribe, or NI user group, has a guaranteed number. The lumps could take 100% of the Indian share of Nooksack River fish, leaving the Nooksacks who fish upstream with zero. The State has (had) no authority to allocate among the tribes.

The State, though, can do whatever it wants with the State share, including giving it to the tribes.