The Spot Prawn Fishery: A Status Report - Earth Economics

The Spot Prawn Fishery: A Status Report
Fisheries Commission (NWIFC) represents 20
treaty Tribes and has followed all stages of the
Rafeedie case. The mission of the NWIFC is to
assist “Treaty Indian Tribes in conducting biologically
sound fisheries and providing a unified voice
on fisheries management issues” (NWIFC 2000,
www.nwifc.wa.gov). Approximately 16 Washington
Tribes have a stated interest in the spot prawn
fishery (David Fyfe, NWIFC. Pers. comm., June
2001).
Since Rafeedie, the Tribes “have a fundamental
government duty to conserve and protect their
treaty-reserved resources, while providing tribal
harvest opportunity” (NWIFC 2000: p.4).
Ensuring the development of sound data-management
systems for catch reporting, research
and assess-ment programs, and monitoring and
enforce-ment regimes is a common goal of all
Tribal shellfish management systems. The need
to regulate and monitor the in-season fishery in
order to ensure conservation of the resource and
maintain a 50:50 allocation between Tribal and
non-Tribal interests is specific to Tribal management.
The development of “in-season population
assess-ment methodologies is one of the goals of
Tribal management systems and will require
increased data collection and research” (NWIFC
2000: p. 5).
The Offshore Spot Prawn Fishery
The offshore, directed fishery for spot prawns
began in approximately 1992, when two boats
based in Westport, Washington actively targeted
spot prawns with pot gear. Prior to this time, spot
prawns were a bycatch species in the ocean pink
shrimp and groundfish trawl fisheries. Bycatch or
incidental catch declined sharply when WDFW
instituted regulations that required a larger mesh
size (WDFW 2001c). In the early developmental
stages of the spot prawn fishery, only a few regulations
were in place. These included: 1) use of cotton
For thousands of years, shellfish has
been a vital food source for Washington’s
Tribes, second only to salmon.
Shellfish are equally important
today for economic as well as subsistence
and ceremonial purposes.
Similar to salmon resources,Tribal
rights to harvest shellfish are guaranteed
in a series of treaties signed
with representatives of the U.S. government
in the 1850s.
THE RAFEEDIE DECISION
“The right of taking of fish at
usual and accustomed
grounds and stations is further
secured to said Indians, in common
with all citizens of the
United States; and erecting
temporary houses for the purposes
of curing; together with
the privilege of hunting and
gathering roots and berries on
open and unclaimed lands.
Provided, however, that they
take no shellfish from any beds
staked or cultivated by citizens”
(Treaty of Point No Point,
Jan. 26, 1855, cited in
Northwest Indian Fisheries
Commission Comprehensive
Tribal Shellfish Management.
2000. www.nwifc.wa.gov/
ctnrm/2000_shellfish.htm).
Shellfish harvests were dominated
by the Tribes until well into the
1920s, but as settlement spread
and available land was purchased,
the Tribes were slowly pushed out
of traditional fishing and harvesting
grounds. Efforts to restore and
uphold treaty rights began with the
case U.S. v. Winans, in which the
Supreme Court ruled that where
treaties reserve Tribal rights to fish
at “usual and accustomed fishing
grounds, the State can not preclude
access to those places” (NWIFC
2000: p. 2). In 1970, the U.S. government
filed a case on behalf of western
Washington fishing Tribes
against the State of Washington. In
1974,“The Boldt Decision” ruled that
the Tribes had a reserved right to
half of the harvestable salmon and
steelhead in western Washington.
The U.S. Supreme Court upheld this
decision in 1979.
Since then, the Tribes and Washington
State have been working to
develop fishery management systems
that ensure opportunities for
both Tribal and non-Tribal fishers.
Despite these efforts, the Tribes felt
obliged to file suit in Federal Court
to protect their treaty shellfish harvest
rights.The issue went to trial in
1994.This case followed the case
law laid out in U.S. v. Washington
(“The Boldt Decision”). Judge
Rafeedie ruled that “the treaties ‘in
common’ language meant that the
tribes had reserved harvest rights.
The tribes reserved the right to harvest
up to half of all shellfish from all
of the usual and accustomed places,
except those ‘staked or cultivated’
by citizens.” Rafeedie stated,“A
treaty is not a grant of rights to the
Indians, but a grant of rights from
them” (NWIFC 2000: p. 3).
All parties to the case have appealed
various parts of Rafeedie’s ruling.
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
heard these arguments in
1997 and upheld Rafeedie’s major
rulings. Portions of the implementation
plan were changed. Appeals for
a re-hearing from the State of
Washington and private property
owners were denied.The Tribes’
appeal to change Rafeedie’s ruling
that prevents the harvest of natural
clams beneath growers’ cultivated
oyster beds was also denied.The
decision became final in 1999, when
the U.S. Supreme Court denied
appeals of lower court rulings.The
Tribes have now “moved past the litigation
and into co-management of
their treaty resources with the State
of Washington” (NWIFC 2000: p.3).
27