Tribal fishing dispute in Washington ends in prawn harvest

Admitting it was not the preferred solution, a federal judge found the court had no authority to stop the harvest.SEATTLE (CN) — A federal judge on Friday cautiously cleared the way for three northern Washington tribes to harvest spotted prawns in the last 11 days of the season despite objections from other tribes.“Do we have problems for next season? Absolutely,” U.S. District Judge Ricardo Martinez said. “But as it stands right now … the court is satisfied that the objecting parties here have not met their burden.”The dispute centers around regulations from three tribes — Tulalip Tribe, the Lummi Nation and the Swinomish Indian Tribal Community, also referred to as the North Sound Tribes — authorizing a fishery for spot prawn. The harvest for spot prawn ends Sept. 15, when the breeding cycle begins.Four tribes — the Suquamish Indian Tribe, Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe, Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe and Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe — opposed the fishery, asking the court to step in. Under the shellfish implementation plan, a contested fishery can’t proceed until the dispute resolution process is resolved.The four tribes filed the objection two days before the North Sound Tribes’ fishery was set to open, arguing the regulations opened harvest and set shares without intertribal agreement and doing so risks overharvest.“The underlying history is one of overharvest followed by all the tribes having to pay back the next year, followed by lower quotas for the next year, followed by more overharvests,” said Lauren Rasmussen, attorney representing the Jamestown S’Klallam and Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribes. “There’s this cycle of mismanagement that has been going on for years.”The four tribes accused the North Sound Tribes of jumping the gun without considering other tribes or conservation needs. The North Sound Tribes released the regulations late Friday afternoon in the summer, which the four tribes suggested was an intentional trick to avoid being seen by the other tribes’ biologists, who could then match the regulations and go fishing.Plus, the four tribes argued, matching the regulations would result in overfishing.“ I think the issue of unilateral allocation is not acceptable or legal unless you have a primary right,” Rasmussen argued.The four tribes asked the court to have the fishery remain closed unless the tribes could find a way to manage the shares safely.“The entire thrust of your argument is this: If you can’t agree, and the four tribes follow through with a fishery, that overharvest will definitely occur,” Martinez noted. “How do you resolve the fact that they are saying, ‘No, it won’t?’”“It only works if we don’t fish,” Rasmussen said. “They can’t ignore that we are going to fish as well, and we cannot collectively plan for an overharvest.”Washington state, while making clear it takes no position on intertribal allocations or agreements, said that Department of Fish and Wildlife biologists have noted significant concerns about the management of the fishery.But the North Sound tribes argued the opposing four tribes didn’t meet their burden to demonstrate the spot prawn fisheries will exceed a 50% share.Tyler Eastman, attorney for the Tulalip Tribes, argued that the fundamental question before the court was whether the four objecting tribes could veto the spot prawn regulations simply because those tribes didn’t reach agreement.“The answer is no,” Eastman said.Eastman said the decision to issue spot prawn regulations without agreement from the other tribes wasn’t made lightly and that the tribes had exchanged multiple proposals.“The regulations are not the product of some grand scheme to deprive the objecting tribes of any harvest opportunity,” Eastman said. “The responding tribes are simply ensuring their own harvest opportunity that would otherwise be lost this season.”The fisheries were designed by calculating the North Sound tribes’ harvest percentages from data over the past five years, applying those percentages to the tribal share of harvestable surplus this year and then setting aside an additional 10% for ceremonial and subsistence harvest, Eastman said.“There’s simply no demonstration of overharvest on the facts before the court,” Eastman said.On that point, the court agreed.“I believe what the four tribes are asking for is very much more preferable, but I don’t believe that this [shellfish implementation plan] provides the court the authority, given the evidence that I have before me at this point in time, to say that they can’t fish,” Martinez said.The George W. Bush appointee urged the parties to “get together and do what’s best for everyone” as well as consider revising the shellfish plan.“I don’t want to be in a position where I’m telling what tribe gets to how much catch of any particular species; that’s for all of you to decide,” Martinez said.Subscribe to our free newslettersOur weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.Additional Reads