complete

storm149state raid.” Survival argued that the Landing sits on reservation landand is therefore outside the state’s jurisdiction.At the time, Judge Boldt had shut down the Nisqually River to netfishing, both on and off the reservation. The state maintained thatthe fifteen patrol officers were protecting a Game patrol boat whileofficers confiscated a net from a closed section of the river. Accordingto Carl Crouse, Game director, Indians threw large rocks at hisemployees as they confiscated nets. Crouse did concede that oneofficer sitting in a car used “fog Mace” to protect himself when anIndian approached.The allegations grew more serious. Adams, on behalf of Survival,also claimed in the letter to have documentation “that the WashingtonGame and Fisheries Patrols have acted to set up confrontationswith Indian people in order to seriously injure or kill particularIndian persons.” Adams accused the attorney general’s office of compelling“a number of these enforcement officers to knowingly executefalse affidavits and to swear false testimony in both civil and criminalcases.” Nothing came of the charges.Meanwhile, U.S. v. Washington climbed its way through courts,further polarizing the tribes, non-Indian fishermen, and the state.Washington State appealed the Boldt Decision to the Ninth CircuitCourt of Appeals. It lost in 1975 under sharp criticism from the court:“It it has been recalcitrance of Washington State officials (and theirvocal non-Indian commercial and sports fishing allies) whichproduced the denial of Indian rights requiring intervention by thedistrict court. This responsibility should neither escape notice or beforgotten,” the court ordered.In 1976, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to review the case, fuelingthe fire within the non-Indian commercial fishing industry. “We’retotally disgusted!” a fisherman snapped. “The Court just upheld thewhite fishermen’s status as second class citizens.” Governor DanEvans urged the state to enforce Boldt’s decision despite the highpitch of rancor from the water.