Silhouetted fish
This online lesson provides perspectives from Native American community members and their supporters, images, news footage, an interactive timeline, and other sources about an important campaign to secure the treaty rights and sovereignty of Native Nations of the Pacific Northwest. Scroll to begin an exploration of the actions Native Nations took to address injustices.
Learn more +
close
This online lesson provides perspectives from Native American community members, documents, maps, images, and activities to help students and teachers understand an important chapter in the history both of Native Nations and the United States.
Close

lesson
information


Grades:

9–12

Nations:

Colville, Lummi, Makah, Muckleshoot, Nisqually, Puyallup, Quileute, Tulalip, Yakama

Subjects:

Government and Civics, History, Social Studies

Keywords:

treaties, fish wars, U.S. Constitution, article six, pacific northwest, Boldt Decision, salmon, U.S. v Washington, usual and accustomed, Washington State, fisheries, protest, Billy Frank Jr., Puget Sound, treaty rights, fish-ins, history, civil rights, sovereignty

Regions:

Northwest Coast, North America


Close

essential
understandings


Framework for Essential Understandings about American Indians
Building on the ten themes of the National Council for the Social Studies' national curriculum standards, NMAI's Essential Understandings reveal key concepts about the rich and diverse cultures, histories, and contemporary lives of Native Peoples. Woven throughout the lesson, the following Essential Understandings provide a foundation for students to thoughtfully approach the different types of actions that Native People and their supporters used to effect change.
This resource addresses the following Essential Understandings:
Essential Understanding 1:
American Indian Cultures

For millennia, American Indians have shaped and been shaped by their culture and environment. Elders in each generation teach the next generation their values, traditions, and beliefs through their own tribal languages, social practices, arts, music, ceremonies, and customs.

Essential Understanding 2:
Time, Continuity, and Change

European contact resulted in devastating loss of life, disruption of tradition, and enormous loss of lands for American Indians.

Hearing and understanding American Indian history from Indian perspectives provides an important point of view to the discussion of history and cultures in the Americas. Indian perspectives expand the social, political, and economic dialogue.

Essential Understanding 5:
Individuals, Groups, and Institutions

Today, because of treaties, court decisions, and statutes, tribal governments maintain a unique relationship with federal and state governments.

Today, American Indian governments uphold tribal sovereignty and promote tribal culture and well-being.

Essential Understanding 7:
Production, Distribution, and Consumption

Today, American Indians are involved in a variety of economic enterprises, set economic policies for their nations, and own and manage natural resources that affect the production, distribution and the consumption of goods and services throughout much of the United States.

Essential Understanding 8:
Science, Technology, and Society

American Indian knowledge can inform the ongoing search for new solutions to contemporary issues.

American Indian knowledge reflects a relationship developed over millennia with the living earth based on keen observation, experimentation, and practice.

Essential Understanding 10:
Civic Ideals and Practices

More than 560 tribal governments are recognized by the United States as having rights of sovereign self-government. Dozens of other tribes are recognized by various state governments, whose authorities and responsibilities differ according to the laws of the states.

Close

academic
standards


Common Core State Standards
STAGE OF INQUIRY
9–10 Grades
11–12 Grades
Overarching Standards/Summative Performance Task

Anchor Standards:
CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.CCRA.W.1
Write arguments to support claims in an analysis of substantive topics or texts using valid reasoning and relevant and sufficient evidence.
CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.WHST.9-10.1Write [construct] arguments focused on discipline-specific content.
CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.WHST11-12.1 Write [construct] arguments focused on discipline-specific content.
Staging the Question: Agency and Action

Anchor Standards:
CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.CCRA.R.2
Determine central ideas or themes of a text and analyze their development; summarize the key supporting details and ideas.
CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.CCRA.W.9
Draw evidence from literary or informational texts to support analysis, reflection, and research.
CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RH.9-10.2Determine the central ideas or information of a primary or secondary source; provide an accurate summary of how key events or ideas develop over the course of the text.
CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RH.11-12.2Determine the central ideas or information of a primary or secondary source; provide an accurate summary that makes clear the relationships among the key details and ideas.
CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.WHST.9-10.9Draw evidence from informational texts to support analysis, reflection, and research.
CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.WHST.11-12.9Draw evidence from informational texts to support analysis, reflection, and research.
Supporting Question 1: How Did People Take Action During the Fish Wars?

Anchor Standards:
CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.CCRA.W.2
Write informative/explanatory texts to examine and convey complex ideas and information clearly and accurately through the effective selection, organization, and analysis of content.
CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.WHST.9-10.2.AIntroduce a topic and organize ideas, concepts, and information to make important connections and distinctions; include formatting (e.g., headings), graphics (e.g., figures, tables), and multimedia when useful to aiding comprehension.
CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.WHST.11-12.2.AIntroduce a topic and organize complex ideas, concepts, and information so that each new element builds on that which precedes it to create a unified whole; include formatting (e.g., headings), graphics (e.g., figures, tables), and multimedia when useful to aiding comprehension.
CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.W.9-10.2.DUse precise language and domain-specific vocabulary to manage the complexity of the topic.
CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.W.11-12.2.DUse precise language, domain-specific vocabulary, and techniques such as metaphor, simile, and analogy to manage the complexity of the topic.
Supporting Question 2: What Happened After the Fish Wars Went to Court?

Anchor Standards:
CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.CCRA.R.1
Read closely to determine what the text says explicitly and to make logical inferences from it; cite specific textual evidence when writing or speaking to support conclusions drawn from the text.
CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.CCRA.R.2
Determine central ideas or themes of a text and analyze their development; summarize the key supporting details and ideas.
CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RH.9-10.1Cite specific textual evidence to support analysis of primary and secondary sources, attending to such features as the date and origin of the information.
CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RH.11-12.1Cite specific textual evidence to support analysis of primary and secondary sources, connecting insights gained from specific details to an understanding of the text as a whole.
CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RH.9-10.2Determine the central ideas or information of a primary or secondary source; provide an accurate summary of how key events or ideas develop over the course of the text.
CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RH.11-12.2Determine the central ideas or information of a primary or secondary source; provide an accurate summary that makes clear the relationships among the key details and ideas.
Supporting Question 3: Were the Fish Wars Resolved?

Anchor Standards:
CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.CCRA.W.1
Write arguments to support claims in an analysis of substantive topics or texts using valid reasoning and relevant and sufficient evidence.
CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.WHST.9-10.1.AIntroduce precise claim(s), distinguish the claim(s) from alternate or opposing claims, and create an organization that establishes clear relationships among the claim(s), counterclaims, reasons, and evidence.
CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.WHST.11-12.1.AIntroduce precise, knowledgeable claim(s), establish the significance of the claim(s), distinguish the claim(s) from alternate or opposing claims, and create an organization that logically sequences the claim(s), counterclaims, reasons, and evidence.
Mapping Informed Action

Anchor Standards:
CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.CCRA.R.9
Analyze how two or more texts address similar themes or topics in order to build knowledge or to compare the approaches the authors take
CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RH.9-10.9Compare and contrast treatments of the same topic in several primary and secondary sources.
CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RH.11-12.9Integrate information from diverse sources, both primary and secondary, into a coherent understanding of an idea or event, noting discrepancies among sources.
Taking Informed Action Expository-Writing

Anchor Standards:
CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.CCRA.W.2
Write informative/explanatory texts to examine and convey complex ideas and information clearly and accurately through the effective selection, organization, and analysis of content.
CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.WHST.9-10.2Write informative/explanatory texts, including the narration of historical events, scientific procedures/ experiments, or technical processes.
CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.WHST.11-12.2Write informative/explanatory texts, including the narration of historical events, scientific procedures/experiments, or technical processes.
College, Career & Civic Life–C3 Framework for Social Studies State Standards
STAGE OF INQUIRY
STANDARDS
Overarching Standards/Summative Performance Task
D1.5.9-12
Determine the kinds of sources that will be helpful in answering compelling and supporting questions, taking into consideration multiple points of view represented in the sources, the types of sources available, and the potential uses of the sources.
D4.1.9-12
Construct arguments using precise and knowledgeable claims, with evidence from multiple sources, while acknowledging counterclaims and evidentiary weaknesses.
D4.3.9-12
Present adaptations of arguments and explanations that feature evocative ideas and perspectives on issues and topics to reach a range of audiences and venues outside the classroom using print and oral technologies (e.g., posters, essays, letters, debates, speeches, reports, and maps) and digital technologies (e.g., Internet, social media, and digital documentary).
Staging the Question: Agency and Action
D2.Civ.1.9-12
Distinguish the powers and responsibilities of local, state, tribal, national, and international civic and political institutions.
Supporting Question 1: How Did People Take Action During the Fish Wars?
D2.Civ.14.9-12
Analyze historical, contemporary, and emerging means of changing societies, promoting the common good, and protecting rights.
D2.Civ.12.9-12
Analyze how people use and challenge local, state, national, and international laws to address a variety of public issues.
Supporting Question 2: What Happened After the Fish Wars Went to Court?
D2.Civ.12.9-12
Analyze how people use and challenge local, state, national, and international laws to address a variety of public issues.
Supporting Question 3: Were the Fish Wars Resolved?
D1.5.9-12
Determine the kinds of sources that will be helpful in answering compelling and supporting questions, taking into consideration multiple points of view represented in the sources, the types of sources available, and the potential uses of the sources.
D2.His.14.9-12
Analyze multiple and complex causes and effects of events in the past.
Mapping Informed Action Foods TBD
D1.5.9-12
Determine the kinds of sources that will be helpful in answering compelling and supporting questions, taking into consideration multiple points of view represented in the sources, the types of sources available, and the potential uses of the sources.
D2.His.14.9-12
Analyze multiple and complex causes and effects of events in the past.
down

Agency and Action

Open Instructions
Close Instructions
Think about the power individuals and communities have to take action. Watch a video, explore a map, and read an expert's perspective about the agency of Native Nations.
Close

HEAR
FROM THE
EXPERT:

Shana Brown
Educator from the Yakama Nation

Shana Brown portrait

Treaties in the Pacific Northwest: Promises Made and Broken


In treaty negotiations with the U.S. government, shrewd chiefs of the Pacific Northwest Native Nations secured perpetual access to their ancestral fishing locations in exchange for thousands of acres of their homelands. Native signatories on the treaties understood that "The right of taking fish at usual and accustomed grounds and stations...in common with all citizens of the Territory" meant that Native peoples were guaranteed off-reservation fishing rights for future generations as well. Without this provision, our ancestors would have refused to have signed the treaties.

During the 1854 and 1855 treaty negotiations with Pacific Northwest Native Nations, Washington Territorial Governor Isaac Stevens vowed that the United States would keep its treaty promises "as long as the sun shines, as long as the mountains stand, and as long as the rivers run." Despite his promises, however, the time frame proved to be of a much shorter duration.

By the 1890s salmon had become a valuable commodity for non-Natives, and pressure increased on the "usual and accustomed grounds" that Native negotiators had reserved for our peoples in the treaties. In direct opposition to the treaty language, Washington State officials interpreted "usual and accustomed grounds" as meaning fishing only on Indian reservations. And, they denied Indians access to any off-reservation fishing sites.

Without a means to provide food for their families, many Native peoples languished in poverty. But, they refused to be victimized. The Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, for example, sought justice through the federal courts. In 1905, the United States Supreme Court in United States v. Winans reaffirmed the tribes' treaty rights to fish in their usual and accustomed grounds and stations, including those located off-reservation. Washington State, however, ignored the federal courts and worked to dismantle federal law. However, instead of accepting injustice, tribal nations chose to take a stand.

And so began the Fish Wars in the Pacific Northwest.

In the early twentieth century, Native peoples protested the State's illegal fishing regulations by simply continuing to fish, thereby exercising their treaty fishing rights. And, because the U.S. Constitution defines treaties as "the supreme law of the land", tribal nations throughout Washington also filed lawsuits against State officials for violating their treaty fishing rights. Yet, the State continued to violate the treaties. The decades-long Fish Wars gained momentum in the mid-1960s. In the homelands of the Nisqually, Puyallup, and Muckleshoot peoples, located in the central Puget Sound region of Washington State, men, women, and children risked all they had to force the State to uphold the treaties. Native peoples persisted even though they were threatened, harassed, clubbed, tear gassed, and jailed by state officials.

Newly formed groups orchestrated strategic "fish-ins," well-planned and publicized off-reservation fishing, to provoke arrests specifically so that tribal people could continually be heard in court. A combination of local elders and educated Native youths worked together to organize the fish-ins and other activist events. Finally, in 1974 federal justice George T. Boldt rendered a decision in United States v. Washington that guaranteed treaty tribes 50% of the harvestable catch. After listening to the dozens of Native witnesses and reading through the hundreds of documents filed for this case, Judge Boldt decided that "in common with all citizens" of the United States—the treaty language—meant "sharing equally."

Although the decision represented a victory in the fight to protect Native peoples' treaty rights, not all tribes benefitted from what is now known as the Boldt Decision. The Makah, for example, lost ancestral halibut fishing sites then in Canada after that nation and the United States declared exclusive fishery zones that ignored the fishing rights of indigenous peoples. Non-treaty tribes, such as the Duwamish, Chinook, and Snohomish, lost access to all of their usual and accustomed fishing sites because the Boldt Decision only applies to tribal nations recognized by the federal government. Non-Indian backlash also intensified in the 1970s and 1980s as sports and non-Indian commercial fishermen expressed their resentment at what they perceived as the loss of their rights—even though those so-called "rights" had never been theirs in the first place. Tensions over tribal treaty fishing rights continue to this day.

So, we ask the question: are social movements, like this one to affirm Native treaty rights, really ever over? Our hope is that you will explore this multifaceted issue in order to answer this question for yourself.

Close

Native Nations of the Pacific Northwest Map


Examine the map and observe the many Native Nations of the Pacific Northwest. See where Native communities and their supporters staged fish-ins during the Fish Wars.


map

print

up down

How Did People Take Action During the Fish Wars?

Open Instructions
Close Instructions
Discover the different kinds of actions that Native communities and their supporters took during the Fish Wars.
Close

Opposing Perspectives: Native Nations and Washington State

Native Nations


In treaties that gave up land, farsighted Indian leaders had reserved the rights to fish, hunt, and gather on ceded land forever. A century later, their descendants faced competition from commercial fisheries. States routinely violated treaties by enforcing game laws on Native people. Fishing tribes were forced to defend their rights.

"I spent thirty years on the tribal government fighting for rights that was supposed to be guaranteed,"

- Willy Jones Sr. (Lummi)

Discussion Questions

What rights were "supposed to be guaranteed"?

Why does Willy Jones Sr. think these rights should have been protected?

Washington State


All across America in the early twentieth century, development and environmental change were depleting natural resources. States enacted conservation laws to protect wildlife and fish.

The state of Washington used those laws against American Indians in spite of treaties that guaranteed access to age-old fishing places. Commercial fishing companies and non-Indian fishers argued that treaties gave Indians unfair advantages. They claimed that Indian fishers would deplete the supply for everyone else.

"It is well to point out that the current controversy hinges on the point that Indians are infringing on state rights. The state is not infringing on the privileges of Indians . . . We have served notice on the young bucks warning them to confine their fishing and hunting to the provisions of the state game law outside their reservation. The department has ordered strict compliance with the game law and is prepared to resort to increased vigilance."

- Bernard T. McCauley, State Game Department Director, quoted in "Enforcing Observance of Game Laws by the Indians," Washington Sportsman, April–May 1936.

Discussion Questions

According to the text, why did Washington State pass conservation laws?

What impacts might conservation laws have on treaty rights of Pacific Northwest Native Nations?

up down

What Happened After the Fish Wars Went to Court?

Open Instructions
Close Instructions
Learn about a precedent setting court case and explore what happened after the court issued its ruling.
Close

Opposing Perspectives: Boldt Decision

By the time Washington Territory became a state (1889), the state legislature had passed laws to "curtail tribal fishing in the name of 'conservation.'" Debate continues over whether such laws were made in the spirit of environmental conservation or to protect the interests of non-Native fisheries.

Native Nations turned to the federal courts to affirm and enforce their treaty-guaranteed rights. As early as 1897, Native Nations found success in the courts. However, the state of Washington continued to arrest Indians for violating state laws and regulations that limited treaty fishing rights.

In September 1970, a United States Attorney filed an action in the U.S. District Court on behalf of many Native Nations of the Pacific Northwest.

Defendants were the State of Washington, the Washington Department of Fisheries, the Washington Game Commission, and the Washington Reef Net Owners Association. U.S. v. Washington would become a landmark case related to the struggle for treaty rights in Washington State and elsewhere.

U.S. v. Washington (1974) "The ultimate objective of this decision is to determine every issue of fact and law presented and, at long last, thereby finally settle, either in this decision or on appeal thereof, as many as possible of the divisive problems of treaty right fishing which for so long have plagued all of the citizens of this area, and still do." —George H. Boldt, Senior District Judge

United States v. Washington, 384 F. 312; 1974 U.S. Dist.

Plaintiffs: Native Nations


Native Nations (Hoh, Makah, Muckleshoot, Nisqually, Puyallup, Quileute, Skokomish, Lummi, Quinault, Sauk-Suiattle, Squaxin Island, Stillaguamish, Upper Skagit, and Yakama Nations)

Plaintiffs seek a clear and decisive ruling about off-reservation treaty right fishing, which long has been and now is in controversy, and for enforcement of those fishing rights.

United States v. Washington, 384 F. 312; 1974 U.S. Dist.

Plaintiff tribes had already established that "usual and accustomed" fishing grounds were often off reservation. They also possessed affidavits, signed by tribal elders, locating and describing these sites. At issue was how much of the harvestable catch of salmon Indians and non-Indians were entitled to.

Discussion Question

What do the plaintiff tribes want?

Defendants: Washington State


Washington State (General Fisheries Conservation and Management, Department of Fisheries Policies and Practices, Department of Game Policies and Practices)

The defendants argue they have the legal authority to regulate fishing, Indian and non-Indian alike.

United States v. Washington, 384 F. 312; 1974 U.S. Dist.

The state of Washington often used "conservation" as a convenient reason to regulate fishing by Indians on non-reservation sites even though the right to do so had been affirmed by prior court cases.

Discussion Question

What do the defendants maintain?

up down

Were the Fish Wars Resolved?

Open Instructions
Close Instructions
Is a campaign for justice ever over? Examine the evidence to determine whether the Fish Wars were completely resolved.
up down
up down

An Artist Takes Action: Project 562

Open Instructions
Close Instructions
Discover how Matika Wilbur—the founder of Project 562—organizes, plans, and acts in order to address injustices and strengthen ties to culture.
up down
NK 360 logo