A trial that had been set to begin this summer, intended to determine the scope of the federally guaranteed fishing rights held by tribal members of Alaska's only reservation, is on hold after other Southeast Alaska tribes asked a judge to dismiss the case.
Metlakatla Indian Community sued the state of Alaska five years ago, asserting the way the state manages commercial fishing infringes on the rights guaranteed to it by Congress. The tribe argues the 1891 federal law that created the Annette Islands Reserve at the southern tip of the Southeast Alaska includes an implicit right to fish outside its boundaries, and that the state’s commercial fishing rules infringe on that right.
A federal appeals court agreed, saying the state’s limited entry system is “incompatible” with Metlakatla’s federally guaranteed fishing rights. A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals sent the case back to the lower court to determine where Metlakatla’s fishermen should be allowed to fish without state permits. A trial was scheduled to begin in mid-August.
But earlier this summer, the Central Council of Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska, along with tribes in Saxman, Kasaan, Petersburg, Craig, and Wrangell, asked a federal judge to dismiss the case. Attorneys for the Central Council argue that their members have fished the same waters for thousands of years.
“The traditional fishing rights they assert here are important cultural property that belong exclusively to the Tlingit and Haida clans,” the Central Council’s attorneys wrote.
Metlakatla is unique among Alaska Native communities. It’s the only Native reservation in Alaska, it didn’t participate in the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, and Metlakatla got its start when a group of Tsimshian people emigrated from British Columbia in the late 1800s at the invitation of the U.S. government.
Metlakatla’s leaders filed the suit in 2020, saying that declining fish returns in the 3,000-foot zone reserved exclusively for the tribe’s fishermen were threatening the community’s existence. They asked a judge to guarantee them non-exclusive access to fisheries near Ketchikan and along the southeastern coast of Prince of Wales Island.
The Central Council argues allowing Metlakatla fishermen to bypass the state’s permit requirements would threaten the salmon runs Tlingit and Haida members have relied on for generations.
“Both traditional tribal fishing practices and the State’s limited entry system provide safeguards to maintain healthy escapement and to protect future fisheries,” the Central Council argues. “Those safeguards would be lost if the Metlakatlans are given free rein to exploit the Tribes’ traditional fishing sites.”
Metlakatla’s attorneys, though, say the tribes challenging the suit fundamentally misunderstand their case. They say the case doesn’t require them to prove that they’ve fished in Southeast Alaska for thousands of years — just that Congress guaranteed them fishing rights when creating the reservation. They say the state made similar arguments earlier in the case and were rebuffed by the courts.
“At this late stage, the only remaining inquiry is the scope of those off-reservation fishing rights, not whether those rights exist or whether Tlingit, Haida or Tsimshian own a fishing area,” Metlakatla’s attorneys wrote. “In a carefully worded opinion, this Court described the proper analytical framework, which when applied to the Central Council’s arguments shows that its motion is misguided and must be denied.”
In any case, Metlakatla argues the Central Council has no legally enforceable fishing rights to protect, thanks to prior court cases and the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act.
Metlakatla’s attorneys say tribal members will still abide by other state fishing regulations, including fishery openings and closings, along with fishing gear restrictions.
“We are not seeking to fish in an unregulated manner anywhere the Community wants,” Metlakatla Indian Community Mayor Albert Smith wrote in a sworn declaration to the court.
It’ll be up to federal District Judge Sharon Gleason to decide whether the case can proceed. Oral arguments are scheduled for Sept. 22 in Juneau.
