United States v. Wilber N. Olander, William Dolman, Denne M. Harrington, Gary D. Rondeau, Gerald L. Minnich, Arthur Schruder, and Roy D. Wilson
Opinion
Opinion
Duniway, J.
These seven appeals have been consolidated and were all heard on the same day, although some were separately argued. We dispose of all of them in this opinion. In each case except that of Olander, we affirm. In Olander’s case, we reverse.
I. BACKGROUND APPLICABLE TO ALL APPEALS.
All of these cases arise from the efforts of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington to enforce its decree in United States v. Washington, W.D.Wash., 1974, 384 F.Supp. 312 , aff’d, 9 Cir. 1975, 520 F.2d 676 , cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1086 , 96 S.Ct. 877 , 47 L.Ed.2d 97 . The district court, finding its decree opposed and frustrated by the executive and judicial departments of the State of Washington, and by the organized and vocal defiance of the commercial fishermen in the State of Washington, felt compelled to implement its judgment by the issuance of an injunction. That injunction regulates fishing for salmon in Puget Sound and certain other areas by non-Indian (“non-treaty”) commercial fishermen for the purpose of assuring to Indian (“treaty”) fishermen the opportunity to catch their share of salmon as determined in the court’s original judgment.