Page 19 - Pierce County Lawyer - September October 2025

A Muckleshoot
fisherman carries
salmon from a canoe
on the Green River
east of Auburn in the
fall of 1970.
Ramona Bennett,
a Puyallup tribal
elder and former
council member
and chairwoman,
remembers well a
riot on the banks of
the Puyallup River.
She and other fishing
activists had staked out
an armed fish camp
that grew to dozens
of tribal members
and their supporters.
After about six weeks,
the police moved in
with flak jackets and
rifles and pistols and
clubs, Bennett, now
85, remembered. “And
they just came down
on us and they came
with gas masks.”
“This one of them
pointed a gun at me
and the barrel was
like that big,” she said
shaping her hands
to a wide circle. “And
pulled the trigger.
And I thought I was
dead. And there was a
[expletive] gas canister
and it just hit me and
bounced around to the
ground, and I kicked
it back and pulled his
gas mask. And that
started a wonderful
game of kick the
canister, because once
it did it, everybody
started doing it.”
One of the police
officers grabbed her
and instead of pulling
away, Bennett jumped
at him. “He rolled down
the levee and into
the river, and so I got
charged with assault,”
Bennett said.
By the time it was over,
a railroad bridge over
the river was burning
and police made more
than 60 arrests. The trial began August 27, 1973, and the
presentation of evidence concluded September 18,
1973. Nearly 50 witnesses testified, whose testimony
was reported in 4,600 pages of trial transcript with
more than 350 exhibits. The Court, in addition
to construing the Treaty of Medicine Creek, also
considered the Treaty of Point Elliott, and the Treaty
with the Quinaeilt (Quinault), the Makah Treaty,
the Treaty of Point No Point, and the Treaty with
the Yakimas. However, the Court found that each of
these other Treaties contained a provision securing
to those Indians certain off-reservation rights similar
to those contained in the Treaty of Medicine Creek.
In construing the Treaty of Medicine Creek, Judge
Boldt directed his greatest effort to the portion
of the Treaty, after reserving an exclusive right
to the Indians of fishing within their reservation
boundaries, that proceeded to reserve to the tribes
off-reservation fishing:
“The right of taking fish at all usual and
accustomed grounds and stations is further
secured to said Indians in common with
all citizens of the territory, and of erecting
temporary houses for the purpose of curing.”
In a condensed version of Judge Boldt’s ruling, his
opinion held:
1. On-reservation fishing by the Treaty
tribes is not subject to state regulation.
2. The state can only regulate off-reservation
fishing to the extent it is reasonable and
necessary for the conservation of the
particular species of fish.
In an abbreviated form, on the issue of off-
reservation fishing by Treaty-Right Tribes, Judge
Boldt held the quantity of these fish could only
be limited by either:
CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE.
S e p t e m b e r / O c t o b e r S e p t e m b e r / O c t o b e r 2 0 2 5 2 0 2 5 | P I E R C E | P I E R C E C O U N T Y C O U N T Y L A W Y E R L A W Y E R 1 9
1 9