complete

the shelf life of treaties 133intended to allow non-Indians to fish subject to prior Indians rightsspecifically assured by treaty.”“She was an extremely careful researcher,” says Ziontz. “She had asuperb memory and a huge trove of documents, so that whenever shesaid anything, if you challenged her she could immediately tell youexactly where this came from.”The second task was to demonstrate a better way to manage thefishery altogether. The fishery “had a history of poor management,”says Pierson. The state was not only violating the Indians’ treatyrights, in his view. It furthered the insult by wrongfully blaming thedepleting runs on tribes. The fishery should be managed closer to themouths of the rivers or in the rivers, he concluded, with the work offish biologist Jim Heckman. According to Heckman, Native Americanscould take all they want of the run, while applying common senseand escapement goals. Pierson recalls an early meeting with thebiologist: “We want you to sit down and, forget about who’s askingyou, tell us the best way to manage fish.”“I don’t have to sit down,” Heckman retorted. “You get closer tothe actual harvesting of the runs. . . . There’s nothing wrong withnets. There’s nothing wrong with gillnets.”Heckman “put together a report and a plan.” He believed Indianscould fish for steelhead in the Nisqually River without damaging theresource. In fact, Heckman said, between 1965 and 1970, chum hadthe best escapement record and the run was fished commercially byIndians only.After three years of trial preparation that included depositionsfrom both Billy and his father, nine attorneys graced the courtroomstage in August 1973. Billy stood in the back of the room worried thecase was rigged.“This is no mere contract dispute,” argued Ziontz. The polishedand witty native of the Windy City represented a handful of thetribes. “[It] involves human rights and the national honor of theUnited States.”