Perspectives from the Snake Basin: Treaty-Based Consumption Harvest Versus Recreational Harvest

The Nimiipúu (Nez Perce people) have always co-existed with and harvested fish. Tribal philosophy holds that the fish are as dependent on the Niimiipuu as the Niimiipuu are on the fish.  One cannot exist without the other, without the purpose that each was put here by the Creator to accomplish.   Today, the Nez Perce Tribe continues to harvest fish on reservation and in off-reservation “usual and accustomed” fishing areas now located in the present-day states of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho.  This right of taking fish encompasses all aspects traditionally involved in the use and management of fish.  The Nimiipuu retains the inherent authority to use and protect salmon and other important fishes.  Our dependence on fish to meet dietary, spiritual, and basic subsistence needs is still a prevailing necessity of life for the Tribe and is protected by the Treaty of 1855.  The Nimiipuu have sought to achieve a management system which recognizes the importance of exercising its fishing rights under the treaty in the form and substance which most closely resembles the framework envisioned by our treaty-time leaders.  To this day, the right to a “fair share” of the salmon harvest by the Nez Perce Tribe does not occur because of the “takings” of fish by non-Indian activities and development in the Columbia Basin.  Implementation of a 50:50 harvest allocation between tribal and non-tribal as established by the Boldt Decision is complex due to different philosophies and harvest methods between tribal and recreational fishers, including; catch and release of wild fish (mark selective fisheries and wild fish impact levels), differences in fishing gear and methods used, spatial and temporal differences in fisheries (catch balancing and restricted fish areas), harvest regulations (bag limits and seasons), and commercial sale of harvested fish.  While carefully managed harvest is considered critical to salmon recovery, the Nez Perce Tribe maintains that some level of tribal harvest should always occur and that treaty fishing is governed by the conservation necessity principles resulting from the treaty rights case law, including U.S. v. Oregon and U.S. v. Washington.