Steelhead Trout Protection Act: Hearing Before the Select Committee on Indian Affairs, United States Senate, Ninety-seventh Congress, First Session, on S. 874 ... June 29, 1981, Seattle, Wash, Part 1U.S. Government Printing Office, 1981 - Government publications |
Other editions - View all
Common terms and phrases
abrogate American Indians American Lutheran Church anadromous areas Boldt decision Bonker Columbia River commercial harvest Committee Congress conservation Council decommercialization Department of Game economic efforts enforcement enhancement Federal court Federal Government fish for steelhead fishcatchers game fish gill nets groups hatchery Ibid Indian Affairs Indian fishermen Indian fishery Indian fishing Indian Lutheran Board Indian policy Indian tribes Indians and non-Indians issue justice land legislation license ment National Indian Lutheran native Native American North Pacific District Oregon percent programs proposed Puget Sound Puyallup Puyallup Tribe Quileute Quinault regional team regulations reservation right to fish salmon and steelhead Seattle Hearing Sedro Woolley Senator GORTON Slade Gorton spawning species sports fishermen sports fishing sportsmen statement steelhead resource steelhead runs steelhead trout Steelhead Trout Protection task force testimony tion treaty fishing rights treaty Indian Tribal Commission Trout Protection Act U.S. Supreme Court United usual and accustomed Wasi'chu WHEREAS
Popular passages
Page 217 - The utmost good faith shall always be observed towards the Indians; their lands and property shall never be taken from them without their consent ; and in their property, rights and liberty, they never shall be invaded or disturbed, unless in just and lawful wars authorized by Congress; but laws founded in justice and humanity shall from time to time be made for preventing wrongs being done to them, and for preserving peace and friendship with them.
Page 69 - The state's extraordinary machinations in resisting the [1974] decree have forced the district court to take over a large share of the management of the state's fishery in order to enforce its decrees. Except for some desegregation cases [citations omitted], the district court has faced the most concerted official and private efforts to frustrate a decree of a federal court witnessed in this century.
Page 232 - No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law, nor deny any person within its Jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Page 21 - The right of taking fish, at all usual and accustomed grounds and stations, is further secured to said Indians in common with all citizens of the Territory...
Page 115 - In carrying out its treaty obligations with the Indian tribes the Government is something more than a mere contracting party. Under a humane and selfimposed policy which has found expression in many acts of Congress and numerous decisions of this Court, it has charged itself with moral obligations of the highest responsibility and trust. Its conduct, as disclosed in the acts of those who represent it in dealings with the Indians, should therefore be judged by the most exacting fiduciary standards.
Page 232 - No law shall be passed granting to any citizen, class of citizens or corporation, privileges or immunities which upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens or corporations.
Page 231 - The treaty right is in terms the right to fish "at all usual and accustomed places." We assume that fishing by nets was customary at the time of the Treaty; and we also assume that there were commercial aspects to that fishing as there are at present. But the manner in which the fishing may be done and its purpose, whether or not commercial, are not mentioned in the Treaty. We would have quite a different case if the Treaty had preserved the right to fish at the "usual and accustomed places" in the...
Page 231 - 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. The right to fish "at all usual and accustomed
Page 116 - The power exists to abrogate the provisions of an Indian treaty, though presumably such power will be exercised only when circumstances arise which will not only justify the Government in disregarding the stipulations of the treaty, but may demand, in the interest of the country and the Indians themselves, that it should do so.
Page 232 - The State of California is an inseparable part of the American Union, and the Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land.