Question

In the 1974 Supreme Court case U.S. v. Washington, Judge Boldt's decision determined that fishing rights "in common" allowed Native American tribes that signed the Treaty of Medicine Creek to catch up to half of the commercial fishing harvest but they could not fish at their "usual and accustomed grounds." True or False?

Answer 1

The claim that Judge Boldt's decision excluded fishing at traditional grounds is false. The 1974 Boldt Decision allowed Native American tribes to catch up to half of the fishing harvest and maintain their right to fish at usual and accustomed grounds.

Step-by-step explanation:

The statement in question is false. In the 1974 Supreme Court case U.S. v.

Washington, often referred to as the Boldt Decision, Judge Boldt's ruling actually affirmed that the Native American tribes that signed the Treaty of Medicine Creek could catch up to half of the commercial fishing harvest and could fish at their "usual and accustomed grounds."

This decision was a significant affirmation of the tribes' treaty rights, recognizing their entitlement to not only a share of the fish harvest but also their right to fish in their traditional locations.

Native American fishing rights were and are a pivotal civil rights issue, with tribes across the country asserting their treaty-guaranteed access to natural resources.

These rights have been contested and upheld through various legal battles, leading to a reaffirmation of tribal sovereignty rights in several cases throughout the 20th century.