Posted by: Krijack
Interesting tibits from a recent lawsuit - 04/21/20 11:24 AM
You can read the whole lawsuit here....
Below is what I find is interesting, as a quick reading opens up the possibility of the tribes being able to expand whaling and sealing. In light of this, I can not see how the State or Federal Government could stop them, without proof of conservation issues.
***********************************
OPINION
McKEOWN, Circuit Judge:
Who would imagine that more than 150 years after the
Treaty of Olympia (the “Treaty”) was signed between the
United States and the Quileute and Quinault tribes, we would
be asked to determine whether the “right of taking fish”
includes whales and seals? Although scientists tell us sea
mammals are not fish,1 these appeals ask us to go back to the
1855 treaty negotiation and signing and place ourselves in
the shoes of two signatory tribes—the Quileute Indian Tribe
(the “Quileute”) and the Quinault Indian Nation (the
“Quinault”)—to determine what they intended the Treaty to
cover. In light of the evidence presented during the 23-day
trial, the district court did not clearly err in its finding thatthe Quileute and Quinault understood that the Treaty’s preservation of the “right of taking fish” includes whales and seals. The court’s extensive factual findings supported its ultimate conclusion that “‘fish’ as used in the Treaty of Olympia encompasses sea mammals and that evidence of customary harvest of whales and seals at and before treaty time may be the basis for the determination of a tribe’s [usual and accustomed fishing grounds].” We affirm the court’s judgment on that score. However, we reverse the court’s delineation of the fishing boundaries because the lines drawn far exceed the court’s underlying factual finding
*******************************
Below is what I find is interesting, as a quick reading opens up the possibility of the tribes being able to expand whaling and sealing. In light of this, I can not see how the State or Federal Government could stop them, without proof of conservation issues.
***********************************
OPINION
McKEOWN, Circuit Judge:
Who would imagine that more than 150 years after the
Treaty of Olympia (the “Treaty”) was signed between the
United States and the Quileute and Quinault tribes, we would
be asked to determine whether the “right of taking fish”
includes whales and seals? Although scientists tell us sea
mammals are not fish,1 these appeals ask us to go back to the
1855 treaty negotiation and signing and place ourselves in
the shoes of two signatory tribes—the Quileute Indian Tribe
(the “Quileute”) and the Quinault Indian Nation (the
“Quinault”)—to determine what they intended the Treaty to
cover. In light of the evidence presented during the 23-day
trial, the district court did not clearly err in its finding thatthe Quileute and Quinault understood that the Treaty’s preservation of the “right of taking fish” includes whales and seals. The court’s extensive factual findings supported its ultimate conclusion that “‘fish’ as used in the Treaty of Olympia encompasses sea mammals and that evidence of customary harvest of whales and seals at and before treaty time may be the basis for the determination of a tribe’s [usual and accustomed fishing grounds].” We affirm the court’s judgment on that score. However, we reverse the court’s delineation of the fishing boundaries because the lines drawn far exceed the court’s underlying factual finding
*******************************