Chapter 9 Fish and Wildlife Regulation
In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

41 P.389, n.42. Delete the text of the footnote after the semi-colon in line 2 and add the following: cf. State v. Cayenne, 195 P.3d 521 (Wash. 2008) (when sentencing a tribal member for an off-reservation crime, the trial court may impose conditions that apply on-reservation as well as off-reservation). P.405, n.162. Add the following to line 8 of the footnote before the semi-colon: ; State v. Roy, 761 N.W.2d 883 (Minn. Ct. App. 2009) (state law prohibiting felon from possessing firearms was a generally applicable criminal statute, not a hunting regulation, and could be enforced against member of tribe with hunting rights); State v. Jacobs, 735 N.W.2d 535 (Wis. Ct. App. 2007) (same) P.409, n.192. Add the following to the end of the footnote before the period: , aff’d on other grounds, United States v. Washington, 573 F.3d 701 (9th Cir. 2009) P.409. Add the following to the text at the end of the first full paragraph: The Ninth Circuit subsequently affirmed the district court but on somewhat different grounds, holding that intertribal claims for equitable allocation of fish are analogous to interstate claims for equitable apportionment of fish under the doctrine described in Idaho ex rel. Evans v. Oregon192.1 and that a tribe which seeks an equitable apportionment against another tribe thus must plead and prove by clear and convincing evidence some real and substantial injury or damage.192.2 192.1 462 U.S. 1017 (1983). 192.2 United States v. Washington, 573 F.3d 701, 707–08 (9th Cir. 2009). Chapter 9 Fish and Wildlife Regulation 42 2009 Supplement—American Indian Law Deskbook, Fourth Edition P.411, n.208. Add the following to the beginning of the footnote: Ruth Langridge, The Right to Habitat Protection, 29 Pub. Land & Resources L. Rev. 41 (2008); P.414, n.221. Add the following to line 1 of the footnote after “See”: Mason D. Morisset and Carly A. Summers, Clear Passage: The Culvert Case Decision as a Foundation for Habitat Protection and Preservation, 1 Bellwether: The Seattle J. Envtl. L. & Pol’y 29 (2009); William Fisher, Note, The Culverts Opinion and the Need for a Broader Property-Based Construct, 23 J. Envtl. L. & Litig. 491 (2008); P.416, n.235. Add the following to the end of the footnote before the period: ; see generally Sidney P. Ottem, The General Adjudication of the Yakima River: Tributaries for the Twenty-First Century and a Changing Climate, 23 J. Envtl. L. & Litig. 275 (2008) P.422, n.293. Add the following to line 5 of the footnote after “see generally”: Michael Davidson, Comment, United States v. Friday and the Future of Native American Religious Challenges to the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, 86 Denv. U. L. Rev. 1133 (2009); P.423, n.298. Add the following to the end of the footnote: On remand, the district court concluded that the government failed to show that limiting permits to members of federally recognized tribes was the least restrictive means of furthering its compelling interests in protecting eagle populations and Native American culture. United States v. Wilgus, 606 F. Supp. 2d 1308 (D. Utah 2009); accord United States v. Hardman, 622 F. Supp. 2d 1129 (D. Utah 2009). P.423, n.299. Add the following to the beginning of the footnote: Stephen Rosecan, Note, A Meaningful Presentation: Proposing a Less Restrictive Way to Distribute Eagle Feathers, 42 New Eng. L. Rev. 891 (2008); P.423, n.302. Add the following to the end of the footnote before the period: ; 74 Fed. Reg. 23,336 (May 19, 2009) P.424, n.303. Add the following to line 1 of the footnote after “see, e.g.,”: 73 Fed. Reg. 55,676 (Sept. 25, 2008) (2008–09 regulations for hunting by certain tribes); 43 Fish and Wildlife Regulation P.426, n.325. Add the following to the end of the footnote before the period: ; see also Alaska v. Fed. Subsistence Bd., 544 F.3d 1089 (9th Cir. 2008) (upholding determination issued under ANILCA regulations regarding customary and traditional use of moose) ...


pdf