complete

the shelf life of treaties 129great-great-great-grandchild learned how tribal fishermen had foughtfor a species of salmon gone extinct.The state concluded it was carrying out the laws, and spent moretime arresting Indian fishermen and managing court documentsthan protecting fish. Arguing that Indians should share the same offreservationrights, privileges, and restrictions as their fellow citizens,Washington maintained controls were necessary to preserve thePacific salmon for the future.As attorney Stan Pitkin put it, tribal fishermen were in dire need ofa “case to end all cases.” On the face of it, U.S. v. Washington was thatcase. In February 1971, Stuart Pierson, an assistant U.S. attorney,arrived in Washington to take the case: “Bob Satiacum had done histhing and continued to do his thing. A lot of people were getting shotat and Stan Pitkin [U.S. attorney] said, ‘We need to do something tostop this.’”“The Nisquallys didn’t have to go in and say this is Nisqually Tribeagainst Washington,” points out Charles Wilkinson, an attorney andscholar of Indian law. “This is the goddamn United States of America.”Concerned about a lack of communication between the tribes andtheir counsel, however, the Survival of the American Indian Associationsent a letter to the U.S. attorney general arguing that the federalgovernment could not adequately “represent the rights and legitimateinterests of the affected tribes.” Instead of establishing special regulationsfor tribes in “usual and accustomed places,” Survival contested,the state should be prohibited from regulating them at all.Hank Adams raised concerns that federal lawyers were marchingahead in their representation without meeting face-to-face withIndian tribes: “If this lawsuit proceeds with the United States adheringto the positions that it presently maintains, unwarranted and grievousinjury shall be done to these valuable treaty rights.”The judge signed the pre-trial order, and “the case to end all cases”moved forward after all.