Us V Oregon Management Agreement
Date Posted: October 13, 2021 by admin
7. King J. stated in his Notice from the District Court that “I had hoped during the hearing that the parties could reach an agreement on this matter. There is a history of broken promises regarding many tribal units, and I am aware that at least on some level, no side wants to be in the position we are in today. The court`s decision on the question of res judicata is another opportunity to reach agreement on the merits. The Wenatshapam Fishery is now mainly occupied by the Leavenworth National Fish Hatchery. The management of the hatchery welcomed the fishing of members of the Wenatchi and Yakama tribes. The fish taken are those that the hatchery qualifies as supernumerary for their needs. Until the current dispute, members of the Wenatchi and Yakama tribes fished there peacefully. 6 The limitations of the intervention procedure clearly prevented Colville from asserting the right claimed by the Wenatchi.
The Wenatchi claim that all rights reserved under Article X of the 1855 Treaty were ceded to the United States by the Yakama Nation in 1894, but only after representatives of the Yakama Nation were convinced that the Wenatchi could still remain on their lands and fish in Wenatshapam. The Wenatchi therefore characterize their fishing rights under the 1894 Agreement as new rights granted by the United States under its independent agreement to buy back the reserve that should have been removed from Article X of the 1855 Treaty, but was never repealed. In other words, according to Colville, the 1894 agreement ended both the Yakama Nation`s existing contractual rights under Article X and new rights (fishing attributions and privileges) for the Wenatchi. Fifty years ago, Justice Robert Belloni ruled in Sohappy v on a landmark case of fishing rights. Smith, later consolidated with United States v. Oregon, which remains one of the longest federal legal proceedings in history. Judge Belloni ruled that the state was violating the contractual rights of the Columbia River tribes by failing to ensure a “fair share” of tribal harvesting machines and asked the state to consider tribal fishing separately and to equate its management priority with its non-contractual commercial and recreational fishing objectives. . . .