As provided by the Quileute Tribe: “Ever since the original United States vs Washington decision of 1974, a case which has been continually refined with proceedings since such time, Quileute and other treaty tribes of Western Washington have been recognized as co-managers of the fishery resource with the state” (“Natural Resources”). In fulfilling their managerial role, the Quileute tribe engages in projects monitoring and managing the salmon and halibut (among other fish populations) and crab populations (“Natural Resources”). In exercising their fishing rights, the tribe harvests clams, mussels and other invertebrates from the beaches of Olympic National Park (“Natural Resources”). While they are not permitted to fish commercially in those areas, because the beaches fall under the tribe’s “Usual and Accustomed area[s],” they are able to harvest the marine life described above for “subsistence and ceremonial purposes” (“Natural Resources”). The tribe works with state and local governments on a number of issues. For instance, as part of their work managing the salmon and other fish populations and their habitats, ensuring and monitoring water quality, among other environmentally-focused projects, the Quileute tribe often works with U.S. and state agencies like the U.S. Forest Service and Washington Department of Natural Resources (“Natural Resources”). Additionally, as provided by the Quileute Tribe: “[…]recently Quileute and other Pacific Coast treaty tribes, with the state of Washington, created an Interagency Policy Council to directly discuss with the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary issues impacting tribal resources within Sanctuary boundaries” (“Natural Resources”). In this regard, the Quileute tribe is engaged in a multilateral effort with other tribes and the state of Washington in order to address their concerns, particularly in regards to the environment and tribal resources.
However, there is still inequity when it comes to fishing rights within the geographical boundaries of the United States. As addressed by the Quileute tribe: “United States vs. Washington has limited tribal treaty fishing to particular geographic areas on the coast, while non-tribal fishers can access the entire coastline within US jurisdiction” (“Natural Resources”). Therefore, there are disparities regarding fishing rights and access to fishing areas between native and non-native people in the United States. In this regard, the fishing rights of the Quileute tribe infringed upon by the United States. By limiting their access to fishing zones, the U.S. is also inhibiting the tribe’s access to life-sustaining resources (e.g. fish). However, the significance of fishing for the Quileute tribe is not limited to the sustenance it provides and it’s economic value, as fishing is also an important part of Quileute culture (“Natural Resources”). As provided by the Quileute tribe: “Ceremonial fish are a vital part of tribal potlatches and other events. Tribal youth are taught from an early age how to engage in both river and marine fisheries” (“Natural Resources”). Therefore, it’s evident that fishing is crucial to their culture, sense of togetherness and livelihoods. It must be noted that Article III of the Treaty of Olympia of 1856 established and legitimized (in the eyes of the U.S. government) the Quileute and other tribes’ of the treaty’s right to fish in “all usual and accustomed” locations (“Treaty of Olympia”). In my view, Article III ensures the Quileute tribe’s right to fish where their people had traditionally fished, free from U.S. regulations. Therefore, it could be argued that the tribe had the right to fish in other areas, as long as they recognize and abide by U.S. regulations if the zones they choose to fish in fall under U.S. jurisdiction.
However, what is “usual and accustomed” is up to interpretation, and in my view, up to the discretion of the Quileute Tribe as they have the most knowledge of their tribe’s historical and contemporary fishing locations. Additionally, it could be argued that the tribe, at the time of treaty signing, had been “accustomed” to fish in any location that provided a surplus of fish to meet the tribe’s subsistence and cultural needs. Regardless, the disparities regarding access to fishing across native and non-native populations must be addressed and hopefully, alleviated. By regulating the fishing rights of the Quileute Tribe, the U.S. is violating their sovereignty and their ability to be self-sufficient. While this is not an example of direct criminalization, by placing regulations on the tribe’s fishing rights, the U.S. is thus regulating the tribe with laws that can be broken. Therefore, this serves as a violation of the tribe’s sovereignty. Additionally, by regulating their fishing activities, the tribe’s only responses are to abide by U.S. regulations or violate them, which is where the issue of criminalization becomes relevant.
In the end, this is a very complex issue but nonetheless one that needs to be addressed.
References
“FISHERIES MANAGEMENT.” Quileute Tribe, quileutenation.org/natural-resources/fisheries-management/. Visit.
“THE TREATY OF OLYMPIA, JAN. 6, 1856.” Quileute Tribe, quileutenation.org/natural-resources/the-treaty-of-olympia/. Visit.
CJ Research: The Quileute Tribe of NA 