Creveling
Creveling v. Treser
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
David Creveling appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to defendants on Creveling’s conversion and Fifth Amendment taking claims. We review de novo, Macri v. King County, 126 F.3d 1125, 1127-28 (9th Cir.1997), and we affirm.
Creveling failed to establish a property interest in the fish removed by the state from a canal upstream of his property. Under Washington law, fish are public property while in state waters, Wash. Rev. Code § 77.04.012 , which includes all fresh water within the state’s boundaries, see id. § 77.08.010(34); Washington Helpers Ass’n v. State, 81 Wash.2d 410 , 502 P.2d 1170, 1173 (1972).
Even if the fish were subject to individual ownership, Creveling’s reliance on Griffith v. Holman, 23 Wash. 347 , 63 P. 239 (1900), is misplaced. Griffith established landowners’ exclusive right to fish the waters running though their properties. However, Creveling did not own the property surrounding the canal from which the fish were taken.
Creveling alleges that he a member of the Methow tribe, which he argues gives him a right by custom in the fish. However, he fails to show how a customary right to fish establishes a property interest in…