Summary

Portrait of William O. Douglas William O. Douglas Puyallup Tribe v. Department of Game of Washington…

We would have quite a diferent case if the Treaty had preserved the right to fish at the 'usual and accustomed places' in the 'usual and accustomed' manner. But the Treaty is silent as to the mode or modes of fishing that are guaranteed. Moreover, the right to fish at those respective places is not an exclusive one. Rather, it is one 'in common with all citizens of the Territory.' Certainly the right of the latter may be regulated. And we see no reason why the right of the Indians may not also be regulated by an appropriate exercise of the police power of the State.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of William O. Douglas William O. Douglas Puyallup Tribe v. Department of Game of Washington…

The use of purse seines and other nets [12] in the salt waters is permitted for commercial purposes under terms and conditions prescribed by the State; and their use in these areas is open to all, Indians as well as others. The use of set nets [13] in fresh water streams or at their mounths is barred not only to Indians but to all others. An expert for the State testified that the reason for that prohibition was conservation:
'The salmon are milling and delaying, and especially in times of law water or early arrival of the run or for any number of reasons, the delay may be considerable.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of William O. Douglas William O. Douglas Puyallup Tribe v. Department of Game of Washington…

The Puyallup Indians use set nets to fish in Commencement Bay and at the mouth of the Puyallup River and in areas upstream. The Nisqually Indians use set nets in the fresh waters of the Nisqually River. These Indians fish not only for their own needs but commercially as well, supplying the markets with a large volume of salmon. The nets used are concededly illegal if the laws and regulations of the State of Washington are valid
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature