Wildlife officials wrong to ticket tribal fisherman, high court rules

[Bob33]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2017470296_supremecourt10.html?prmid=4748

 OLYMPIA — In a ruling issued Thursday morning, the state Supreme Court determined that state wildlife authorities had no right to give a Yakama fisherman a ticket for catching undersized fish with a net at a tribal fishing site.

In a 6-3 decision, the state's highest court said that the state had no jurisdiction when it issued a citation to Lester Ray Jim, an enrolled Yakama, at the Maryhill Treaty Fishing Access Site on the Columbia River.

On June 25, 2008, state Department of Fish and Wildlife officers gave Jim a ticket for unlawfully retaining five undersized sturgeon and unlawful use of a net at Maryhill. Jim told officers he planned to release the sturgeon back into the river after bringing them onto shore, a common practice among tribal fishermen.

The sturgeon, which can survive out of water for several hours, were released back into the river.

Tribal law allows Yakama members a reasonable opportunity to release alive any sturgeon of prohibited length incidentally caught in authorized fisheries.

The fishing site where the incident occurred is one of several established by the U.S. Congress in 1988 to make up for traditional fishing grounds flooded by Columbia River dams.

Jim appealed in Klickitat County District Court, which dismissed the citation. Klickitat County Superior Court then overturned the dismissal, saying the state indeed had jurisdiction anywhere except within reservation boundaries.

Jim appealed again, this time to the State Court of Appeals, which ruled in his favor. The state then appealed to the Supreme Court.
 

[pianoman9701]

It sounds to me like the WDFW guy got over-zealous, especially if he could have waited to see if the guy was going to release the fish. If they're allowed to net fish there and he would have released, he shouldn't have been bothered.

Whether or not we agree with the netting of these fish by Native people is another discussion. I think the ruling was probably just.

[PlateauNDN]

This was announced yesterday at our General Council and the WDFW Officer should have turned the case over to the proper jurisdiction (Yakama Nation Game Wardens) and they would have handled the situation accordingly per Tribal Law since the WDFW has no jurisdiction over Tribal Members while exercising their Treaty Rigths and could've saved the State a lot of time and money that could've been spent better somewhere else.

I was going to post it but I didn't want anybody to get the impression I was rubbing it in anyones faces so I didn't.

[pianoman9701]

c'mon Plat, you know you like rubbing people's noses! Sorry, that's Inuits. Never mind! 

[PlateauNDN]

c'mon Plat, you know you like rubbing people's noses! Sorry, that's Inuits. Never mind! 

Wrong region   eh?  I'll rub noses as long as it's with a hot looking Inuit!

[HairTrigger]

Its common for them to watch an approach the fishremen when they get to a landing and go look in the boat, and see whats in there, then if they see something in question will go from.there and the sturgeon are usually put back in the water after unloading the boat, but seems the warden wanted to test it so he did, and lost I know first hand how this goes never been ticketed though? They are always testing what to see what happens.

[Mike450r]

Now this becomes what they call "case law".  If another tribal member gets that same citation all he/she needs to do is cite Lester Ray Jim V. Wa. State to get it dismissed.

There are thousands of examples of case law in Washington, any time a person or the state wins an appelate court case it basically adds to the RCW's that applied to the case.  You won't find them in the RCW's but they can sure come in handy.

This is why the state will cave in many times as it is better to let one case go at the lower level rather than have exceptions to the RCW for everybody.

There was a bear baiting case years ago that went in favor of the hunters at the superior (county) court level, the state could have appealed but if they would have lost on appeal everybody would been allowed to bait again so they just took the loss.

[PlateauNDN]

Now this becomes what they call "case law".  If another tribal member gets that same citation all he/she needs to do is cite Lester Ray Jim V. Wa. State to get it dismissed.

There are thousands of examples of case law in Washington, any time a person or the state wins an appelate court case it basically adds to the RCW's that applied to the case.  You won't find them in the RCW's but they can sure come in handy.

This is why the state will cave in many times as it is better to let one case go at the lower level rather than have exceptions to the RCW for everybody.

There was a bear baiting case years ago that went in favor of the hunters at the superior (county) court level, the state could have appealed but if they would have lost on appeal everybody would been allowed to bait again so they just took the loss.

There were other court cases prior to this one as I stated earlier and not just fishing issues but hunting, land issues and right-of-way cases etc. etc. etc.  WDFW didn't want to accept that their officer was wrong in his approach and so they continued to fight even though they already knew they were going to continue to lose.

The officers I've encountered knew they didn't have jurisdiction and were courteous and curious at the same time within the exception of one that could not except that he was not going to find anything wrong but kept searching any ways and afterwards went on his way.  Wasn't rude or offensive, just trying to find something and even IF, which he wouldn't have with me, IF he did find something with me I know my rights and would've contacted the Tribal Police myself if he wanted to be an a$$hole and waste time and money on his behalf.

[HairTrigger]

You guys can't bait? Huh news to me, we don't hunt bears an there's hellva lot in the closed area, an why can't you use dogs to tree? There's ALOT UP THERE TOO!!

[PlateauNDN]

I've seen and almost hit quite a few bears along the N.B. over the last few years and most of them were huge.

[Sitka_Blacktail]

Would make sense to move undersized sturgeon away from the net before releasing them, especially a set net. Less chance of them getting tangled up  right  away again in the net.

[BOWHUNTER45]

what ever happened to ...THIS LAND IS YOUR LAND , THIS LAND IS MY LAND  I think I am going nuts BEWARE !!!!

[Gringo31]

the WDFW Officer should have turned the case over to the proper jurisdiction (Yakama Nation Game Wardens) and they would have handled the situation accordingly per Tribal Law

I think that is probably the right answer......I'm curious if the Yak Nation Wardens have made a move of their own now? 

[buckhorn2]

Maybe right but also maybe wrong as I myself have seen in aberdeen a pickup full of undersize sturgeon being packed into a gun shop to give them away they could;nt sell them but could barter with them. Talked to a national marine officer he said he thaught that doing that was good PR work and we asked after he gives away undersize fish to a non-indian what happens if he gets checked. People don;t have to wonder where the sturgeon went in the river here they went the way of the buffalo and it was;nt us this time. Enforcement for regulations should be inforced by all fish and game officers in my opinion no more you can;t touch me.

[Houndhunter]

I guess that's why we don't see sturgeon in the Chehalis anymore...