A Brief Look at the Legal History and Current Laws Surrounding Salmon in Washington
January 14, 2025 by Anthony Choi

The Columbia River in southern Washington.
In Washington, Native Tribes fought for decades in court for their treaty right to fish. Their efforts have greatly impacted how salmon are managed in the state today.
Sitting at an average size of nine kilograms heavy and 68 centimeters long, the Chinook Salmon, among the six other Pacific salmon species, are behemoths as they migrate from the Pacific Ocean to their freshwater spawning grounds in the Columbia River.[1] In line with their size, Salmon have maintained a large role economically and culturally for Washington residents.[2]Economically, in 2022, domestic fisheries contributed to 23,000 jobs in Washington, with $14 million attributed to salmon harvesting.[3] Recreational fishing also generated more than $1.5 billion, with salmon being a prized catch for many residents.[4] Culturally, in addition to the ties in communities created by recreational salmon fishing, some local Native American tribes define themselves as “Salmon People,” as salmon are integral to tribal lives through food, income, art, and heritage.[5] These strong ties have significantly impacted the legal history and development of current state fishing laws in Washington.[6]
As the number of settlers grew in Washington in the mid-1800s, the territory’s first governor, Isaac Stevens, negotiated a series of treaties dubbed the “Stevens Treaties” that moved the Natives into reservations, ultimately leaving them with less than 10% of their original holdings.[7] Key language in the treaties, including the Treaty of Point Elliot, affirmed the Natives’ continued right to fish on non-reservation land.[8] As the number of settlers and canneries grew over the next century, the state denied the Natives’ treaty right to fish under the justification of conflicting state law.[9] The Natives sought recourse in court, which led to the decision of United States v. Washington in 1974.[10] Referred to as “the Boldt decision,” Judge Boldt of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington held that the treaty right was protected, and the Natives could take up to 50 percent of the fish harvest that passed through their recognized fishing grounds as co-managers of the resource.[11]
This co-management by the state and tribes is reflected today through the cooperation of the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission (NWIFC) and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife in setting salmon harvest seasons and protecting habitats.[12] With a focus on local planning and decision-making dubbed the “Washington Way,” various state agencies, such as the Salmon Recovery Funding Board and the Conservation Commission, work with local groups for salmon management and recovery.[13] At the federal level, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is responsible for recovering salmon and steelhead under the Endangered Species Act.[14] Their roles include evaluating threats to salmon populations, funding recovery efforts, and approving recovery plans.[15]
State laws on fishing and salmon are encapsulated in Title 220 of the Washington Administrative Code (WAC).[16] The code covers an array of topics related to salmon fisheries, such as appropriate fishing gear, fish handling, fish sizes, reporting, and permits/licensing, all sorted between commercial or personal use and specific fishery locations.[17] Concerning co-management with tribes, the Stevens Treaties were formal contracts between sovereign nations, making them a source of federal law; therefore, they preempt conflicting state fishing laws by the Supremacy Clause.[18] A narrow exception to this is the state regulation of the fishing of a particular species for conservation purposes.[19]
Climate change is a present and growing threat to salmon populations.[20] Climate change is threatening salmon by reducing the clean, cold water they need to survive.[21] Rising temperatures are causing glaciers and snowpacks to shrink, decreasing stream flow and increasing water temperatures, which stress or kill salmon.[22] Additionally, more frequent winter flooding, driven by increased rainfall, disrupts salmon habitats and life cycles, further endangering their survival.[23]
Tribal knowledge, expertise, and experience are critical for salmon recovery, with reports by the NWIFC providing an ongoing scientific foundation for recovery efforts.[24] Co-management by Native tribes and the state will likely play a key role in Washington’s protection of salmon populations in the face of climate change.
[1] Salmon Life Cycle and Seasonal Fishery Planning, NOAA Fisheries, https://perma.cc/DP29-8QYT (last updated Oct. 6, 2022); Salmon Facts, Pac. Salmon Found., https://perma.cc/R7WA-YTZX (last visited Jan. 1, 2025); Pacific Salmon Species Spotlight, PacificWild,https://perma.cc/XZL9-VH9V (last visited Jan. 10, 2025); Chinook Salmon, Wash. Dep’t of Fish & Wildlife, https://perma.cc/96ZM-ADZA (last visited Jan. 10, 2025).
[2] Governor’s Salmon Recovery Off., State of Salmon in Watersheds (2022); Treaty History with the Northwest Tribes, Wash. Dep’t of Fish & Wildlife, https://perma.cc/3P3E-6KXK (last visited Jan. 10, 2025).
[3] Governor’s Salmon Recovery Off., State of Salmon in Watersheds (2022); Treaty History with the Northwest Tribes, Wash. Dep’t of Fish & Wildlife, https://perma.cc/3P3E-6KXK (last visited Jan. 10, 2025).
[4] Id.
[5] Id.; Phil Dougherty, Boldt Decision: United States v. State of Washington, HistoryLink (July 24, 2020), https://perma.cc/H6TS-Y573.
[6] Introduction to United States v. Washington, Univ. of Wash., https://perma.cc/X79M-ZFVF (last visited Jan. 10, 2025).
[7] Phil Dougherty, Boldt Decision: United States v. State of Washington, HistoryLink (July 24, 2020), https://perma.cc/H6TS-Y573.
[8] Id.; Univ. of Wash, supra note 6; Treaty History with the Northwest Tribes, Wash. Dep’t of Fish & Wildlife, https://perma.cc/3P3E-6KXK(last visited Jan. 10, 2025.
[9] Dougherty, supra note 7; Michael C. Blumm & Brett M. Swift, The Indian Treaty Piscary Profit and Habitat Protection in the Pacific Northwest: A Property Rights Approach, 69, Colo. L. Rev. 407, 409-10 (1998) (discussing impact of habitat-destroying activities on Native fishing rights).
[10] Dougherty, supra note 7.
[11] Id.; About Us, Nw. Indian Fisheries Comm’n, https://perma.cc/E2VY-45FZ (last visited Jan. 10, 2025).
[12] Governor’s Salmon Recovery Off., supra note 3; About Us, Nw. Indian Fisheries Comm’n, https://perma.cc/E2VY-45FZ (last visited Jan. 10, 2025); Who’s Involved, State of Salmon, https://perma.cc/8HKH-HLF7 (last visited Jan. 10, 2025).
[13] Governor’s Salmon Recovery Off., supra note 3; Who’s Involved, State of Salmon, https://perma.cc/8HKH-HLF7 (last visited Jan. 10, 2025).
[14] Id.
[15] Id.
[16] Wash. Admin. Code § 220 (2024)
[17] Id.
[18] Treaty History with the Northwest Tribes, Wash. Dep’t of Fish & Wildlife, https://perma.cc/3P3E-6KXK (last visited Jan. 10, 2025).
[19] Id.; Univ. of Wash., supra note 6.
[20] Governor’s Salmon Recovery Off., supra note 3.
[21] Id.
[22] Id.
[23] Id.
[24] Id.