top of page

Lasting Legacies
 

During Orca Month in 2023, through stories and videos, we'll honor the Lasting Legacies of the Southern Resident orcas and celebrate the legacy of the 50th anniversary of the Endangered Species Act.

Coming soon!

 

Salmon form the ecological backbone of the Salish Sea bioregion. For that reason, the Boldt Decision—50 years old in February of this year—stands as a landmark in the ongoing struggle for healthy salmon runs and Indigenous sovereignty. Issued in 1974, this legal ruling forever altered the landscape of salmon fisheries, Tribal rights, and environmental conservation in our region.


Read the full story below, written by Puget Soundkeeper’s Communications Manager Nicole Loeffler-Gladstone.


Female coho salmon jumping falls at a beaver dam in Longfellow Creek, Seattle, during spawning season. Photo courtesy Tom Reese.


Salmon form the ecological backbone of the Salish Sea bioregion. For that reason, the Boldt Decision—50 years old in February of this year—stands as a landmark in the ongoing struggle for healthy salmon runs and Indigenous sovereignty. Issued in 1974, this legal ruling forever altered the landscape of salmon fisheries, Tribal rights, and environmental conservation in our region.


Dispossession

Disruption of Indigenous and Tribal ecosystem management began with the first European settlers and the advent of colonization along the West Coast of Turtle Island (North America). Burgeoning European industrialization in the form of habitat destruction and pollution, and the attempted genocide of Indigenous people, had a catastrophic impact on ecological function.


Indigenous people sustainably managed Northwest ecosystems for tens of thousands of years. By the 1950s—about 100 years after some Tribes signed treaties with Governor Isaac Stevens—60% of Indigenous people on reservations were living in poverty. Native people endured the Code of Indian Offences, which made certain cultural religious practices illegal; the appalling violence of residential schools; the Dawes Act (General Allotment Act) that further fractured and shrank reservation lands; and the Indian Relocation Act that encouraged Native people to leave reservations for urban areas and supposed employment opportunities.


Treaty Rights, Lifeways, and the Fish Wars

Pacific Northwest salmon runs plummeted by the mid-20th century. Non-Native fishermen, angered by what they saw as competition over increasingly diminished fisheries, began to attack and harass Native fishermen. Indigenous people were shot at by vigilantes, had their gear stolen or destroyed, and were arrested. In 1945, legendary Nisqually leader Billy Frank Jr. was arrested for the first time at age 14 as he fished on the Nisqually River. He would be arrested more than 50 times during a lifetime of activism.


Northwest Native people were deeply involved in the Civil Rights movement. Frank Jr. wrote, “We marched with Dr. King, and when we returned home, we continued the struggle by protesting, getting arrested, getting out of jail and doing it all over again.” Northwest Native people created “fish-ins,” integrating the Civil Rights tactic of the “sit-ins” into their own nonviolent direct. The first fish-in was held March 1st, 1964, on the Puyallup River.


The “Fish Wars” came to a head after the violent dispersal of a six-week-long fishing camp set up underneath the Puyallup River Bridge—what's now known as Frank’s Landing. In September 1970, Tacoma Police raided the camp, using teargas on the crowd and arresting over 60 people, including children.


The Boldt Decision

Sam Pitkin, a federal prosecutor, was present as a legal observer that day. He filed United States v. State of Washington nine days later, asserting that the State of Washington was infringing on Native treaty rights.


On February 12th, 1974, Judge George Boldt reaffirmed the tribes' treaty-protected fishing rights guaranteed under 19th-century treaties with the federal government. Significantly, he allocated 50% of the annual catch to Tribes, affirming their rights to fish in their usual and accustomed areas. The decision helped to establish government-to-government relationships between Tribes and Washington State, as fishery co-management became mandatory. Boldt also ruled that non-Native fishing could be limited for conservation purposes.


Fishing rights activists had worked to create an intertribal fisheries commission for at least a decade prior. After the Boldt decision required co-management, 19 federally recognized treaty Tribes formed the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission.


Legacy and Fallout

The Boldt decision rested on 1850s treaties and the designation of “usual and accustomed grounds.” However, not every Northwest Tribe had signed treaties, and “grounds” described by European and white colonizers were often arbitrary and had not been previously legally established.


As a result, the decision demarcated areas for each federally recognized Tribe’s use and created geographic divisions that were not necessarily representative of Indigenous lifeways. Colville Tribe member Pam James, the tribal liaison for the Washington State Historical Society (WSHS), told Al Jazeera, “When we think about pre-contact, the resources were shared.”


Further, non-federally recognized Tribes were left out of the Boldt decision altogether. The Chinook Tribe in Oregon and the Duwamish Tribe in Washington, for example, do not have guaranteed fishing rights and access to fisheries co-management.


And salmon runs continue to suffer. Climate change and warming waters, toxic stormwater laden with chemicals like 6PPD-quinone, dams, culverts, and habitat destruction all play a role in the long-term decline.


However, there are some bright spots: In 2022, Washington State banned commercial net pen fish farming in state waters. In 2023, Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe members fished for salmon for ceremonial purposes on the Elwha River, a first since dam removal was completed in 2014. These successes emphasize the integral role of salmon in Northwest culture since time immemorial. It is our shared responsibility to ensure salmon and salmon culture continue to survive and thrive into the future.

Orca Action Month wouldn’t be designated as such without orca-lovers, like you, acting on behalf of the Southern Residents. 


To help raise awareness on the impacts of toxic chemicals on orcas, salmon, and human communities, and to increase protections for the Southern Resident orcas, Orca Action Month has listed two petitions – one for Washington and one for Oregon – that can be filled out below!


Southern Resident orcas off Whidbey Island. Courtesy Bonnie Gretz.


Tell Washington to Ban Toxic Chemicals that Harm Orcas, Salmon, and People

Toxic chemicals in consumer products are a major source of pollution, impacting the health of people, fish, and wildlife in Puget Sound. From products like tires, electronics, and plastics, toxic chemicals can leach into air, dust, soil, and water, threatening the health of local species like coho salmon and orcas.


Safer Products for Washington is a law that gives Washington’s Department of Ecology (Ecology) the ability to regulate different toxic chemicals in products. This year, Ecology is proposing to prioritize PPDs, brominated and/or chlorinated substances, formaldehyde, BTEX substances, siloxanes, lead and cadmium for regulatory actions.  Many of these chemicals are known to have toxic effects on aquatic life.


Sign here to tell the WA Department of Ecology and Governor Inslee to ban these harmful chemicals from consumer products to keep our environment safe!



Chinook salmon returning, at Hiram Chittenden Locks, Seattle. Courtesy Tom Reese.


Tell Oregon Fish & Wildlife: Do More for Southern Resident Orcas

Earlier this year, the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission unanimously voted to list Southern Resident orcas under the Oregon Endangered Species Act, opening the way for Oregon to implement additional protections for these critically endangered whales. Unfortunately, the Survival Guidelines adopted with the listing do not commit the state to significant recovery actions.


Within the next year, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) and other stage agencies will develop a species management plan for Southern Resident orcas, which will provide another opportunity to establish meaningful state protections. Sign our letter here asking ODFW and the Commission to develop a plan with ambitious protections and an accessible public comment process.


There are only 74 Southern Resident orcas alive today, and Oregon plays a key role in their survival. The whales rely heavily on dwindling Chinook salmon populations from the Columbia Basin and other Oregon costal rivers. Without significant recovery actions, we could lose this species permanently within 50 years.

Earlier this year, Puget Soundkeeper was proud to support Front and Centered as the coalition brought its Cumulative Risk Burden (CURB) Pollution Act to the 2024 legislative session. This was CURB’s first year in front of the legislature, and it did not pass. Representative Sharlett Mena sponsored the bill.


Puget Soundkeeper spoke with Nico Wedekind, Policy Counsel at Front and Centered, about the CURB Act and what’s next for this ambitious, necessary environmental justice bill. Read the full story below, written by Puget Soundkeeper’s Communications Manager Nicole Loeffler-Gladstone.


Photo: Aerial view of industrial activity in Puget Sound. Photo courtesy Puget Soundkeeper.


Puget Soundkeeper was proud to support Front and Centered as the coalition brought its Cumulative Risk Burden (CURB) Pollution Act to the 2024 legislative session. This was CURB’s first year in front of the legislature, and it did not pass. Representative Sharlett Mena sponsored the bill.


Front and Centered is a communities of color-led coalition, organizing across Washington State. It seeks a Just Transition: centering those disproportionately impacted in governance, restoring community connections to place, creating livelihoods within a healthy environment, and transitioning to renewable resources and energy.


The CURB Act advances a Just Transition because it addresses the cumulative burden of pollution in certain neighborhoods—neighborhoods where government policies allowed, or even encouraged, polluting industries to concentrate. Contemporary pollution permits are not required to consider the historic burden of pollution and the disproportionate, ongoing health risks in certain communities.


Puget Soundkeeper spoke with Nico Wedekind, Policy Counsel at Front and Centered, about the CURB Act and what’s next for this ambitious, necessary environmental justice bill.


PSK: This was the CURB Act’s first year. Can you give a brief overview of how the bill works, for those who are less familiar?


NW: The Cumulative Risk Burden Act is trying to recognize that historically, certain communities have borne the most extreme levels of pollution in the state. It attempts to remedy that by requiring a risk analysis at the project development level. CURB mandates the state deny projects if they can’t be sited in a community without increasing the base level of pollution. For existing projects, it tries to work with the proponent or pursue mitigation.


PSK: How does this differ from existing environmental justice (EJ) legislation?


NW: It builds on the Healthy Environment for All (HEAL) Act, and other climate-based legislation, that recognizes pollution as a key indicator of social determinants of health. It goes farther, with the authority to deny a project. Other EJ laws tend to be voluntary or aspirational in terms of really pushing legislative bodies or agencies into action, but CURB clearly lays out how agencies can perform EJ work.


PSK: Why was 2024 the year to run the CURB Act?


NW: We recognize that bills like this don’t really pass in their first session. We also recognize that current EJ laws are getting some momentum. Whether or not that continues to build, we wanted to seize the moment. We need this kind of legislation. Community health can’t wait. Other states have started to pass similar laws, and we can help keep Washington at the forefront of environmental justice.


PSK: What kind of roadblocks did you experience during the session? Were any of them unexpected?


NW: There were lots of ideas on the structure of the bill, which caused some delay in how it progressed. We were thankful for that level of engagement and in-depth participation, because complex bills tend to turn people off. The Senate did not fully consider the bill, besides in committee, and business and construction associations stated some hesitation around the bill. But I think we were adaptive to a lot of concerns.


PSK: What’s next for the CURB Act?


NW: The bill has broad support, and we think it can pass next year. I do want to mention that when the House passed the bill in the Environment & Energy committee, it did so with bipartisan support. And those who voted against it were still engaging with the bill and giving detailed feedback. This was exciting to see, and we hope to build on the fact that both parties recognize now is the time for environmental justice legislation.

We were really inspired by our coalition members who came out to testify for the bill, and by community members who talked about how they wish something like CURB was already in place to help fight polluting projects.


PSK: Do you see CURB starting to influence Washington’s environmental justice policies?


NW: We hope that it’s part of a continuing trend of environmental justice legislation. Its progress showed that there is bipartisan acknowledgement of the problem, and that pollution is a statewide issue. We hope that this awareness continues to build, and the mandatory authority—the stronger level of direction to government—is the new trend. Front and Centered wants environmental justice to be enforceable.

bottom of page