ELR Citation: ELR 20585
No(s). 88-3289 (9th Cir. Mar 13, 1990)

The court holds that while a state can apply its conservation laws to Indians who have acquired treaty rights to hunt and fish only if the state's laws are necessary for conservation, a state's laws may be presumed necessary for conservation if an Indian tribe has enacted wildlife laws similar to state or federal law. Appellant, a tribal member, was convicted of possessing, transporting, and commercially selling wildlife in violation of state, federal, and tribal laws. The court finds that the purpose of requiring the government to prove conservation necessity before imposing its wildlife laws on tribe members is to safeguard the hunting and fishing rights held by the tribes while pursuing conservation. However, a showing of conservation necessity only applies to state laws incorporated through the Lacey Act, not to tribal wildlife laws. The court holds that tribal wildlife laws are per se valid against tribe members, thus making the need for a conservation hearing superfluous where the tribe has enacted similar laws that are clearly valid.

Counsel for Defendant-Appellant
Mary Linda Pearson
22933 Edmonds Way SE, Edmonds WA 98020
(206) 778-9524

Counsel for Plaintiff-Appellee
Michael P. Healy
Land and Natural Resources Division
U.S. Department of Justice, Washington DC 20530
(202) 633-2757

Nelson (before Wallace and Pregerson, JJ.):