Department of Game of Washington v. Puyallup Tribe

PETITIONER: Department of Game of Washington
RESPONDENT: Puyallup Tribe
LOCATION: The Miami Herald

DOCKET NO.: 72-481
DECIDED BY: Burger Court (1972-1975)
LOWER COURT: Washington Supreme Court

CITATION: 414 US 44 (1973)
ARGUED: Oct 10, 1973
DECIDED: Nov 19, 1973

ADVOCATES:
Harry R. Sachse - for respondents in No. 72 481 and petitioner in No. 72—746
Joseph L. Coniff, Jr. - for petitioner in No. 72—481 and for respondent in No. 72—746

Facts of the case

Question

Media for Department of Game of Washington v. Puyallup Tribe

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - October 10, 1973 in Department of Game of Washington v. Puyallup Tribe

Audio Transcription for Opinion Announcement - November 19, 1973 in Department of Game of Washington v. Puyallup Tribe

Warren E. Burger:

Thank you, Mr. Justice Stewart.

The judgments and opinions of the Court in 70-2481, Department of Game of Washington against Puyallup Tribe and 72-746, Puyallup Tribe against the Department of Game will be announced Mr. Justice Douglas.

William O. Douglas:

These cases were here before us involved the construction of the Treaty with the Indian, with the Puyallup Tribe which we held previously, in the prior decision, covered commercial fishing by nets and we remanded the case or the cases that were here before for reconsideration by the Washington Supreme Court, reconciling the treaty right to fish by nets in the right to fish by hook and line with the conservation standards that are -- we emphasized exists in the cases that were here before.

On the remand, the Supreme Court of Washington on consideration of conversation issue, restricted all steelhead fishing in this particular river, the Puyallup river to fishing by hook and line.

We hold that, that is not consistent with the treaty rights of the Indians.

The commercial fishing by nets raises considerable problems in connection with the conservation problems that we must remand the case we feel to the Supreme Court of the state Washington so that some equitable solution consistent with the treaty rights can be worked out.

Our views our elaborated in an opinion filed with the clerk.

Mr. Justice White has, while concurring in the opinion, has filed a separate opinion in which the Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Stewart concurred.

Warren E. Burger:

Thank you Mr. Justice Douglas.