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

73 Fish and Wildlife Regulation 73 P.385, n.13. Add the following to line 1 of the footnote after “see”: San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Auth. v. Salazar, 638 F.3d 1163 (9th Cir. 2011), petition for cert. filed, 80 USLW 3004 (U.S. June 22, 2011) (No.10-1551); AlabamaTombigbee Rivers Coalition v. Kempthorne, 477 F.3d 1250 (11th Cir. 2007); P.386, n.21. Add the following to the end of the footnote before the period: ; but see State v. Guidry, 223 P.3d 533 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009) (state law could not be enforced against non-Indian who was “assisting” member spouse in the exercise of treaty fishing in a manner approved by law of spouse’s tribe) P.387, n.24. Add the following to the end of the footnote before the period: ; Marc Slonim, Indian Country, Indian Reservations, and the Importance of History in Indian Law, 45 Gonz. L. Rev. 517 (2010) P.387, n.29. Delete the text of the footnote and replace it with the following: 25 U.S.C. § 1302(7). The Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010 amended the Indian Civil Rights Act to authorize harsher penalties under some circumstances. Pub. L. No. 111-211, 124 Stat. 2258 (2010). P.389, n.41. Replace “543 N.W.2d 246” with “543 N.W.2d 426”. 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 crime-related conditions that apply on-reservation as well as off-reservation, and which limit the means by which that member can exercise fishing rights secured to the member’s tribe). Chapter 9 Fish and Wildlife Regulation 74 2011 Supplement—American Indian Law Deskbook, Fourth Edition P.389, n.43. Delete “128 S. Ct. 2709, 2719–20” in the first line of the footnote and replace it with the following: 554 U.S. 316, 328–30 Add the following to the end of the footnote: But see Water Wheel Camp Recreational Area, Inc. v. LaRance, 642 F.3d 802, 808 (9th Cir. 2011) (“Indian tribes possess inherent sovereign powers, including the authority to exclude, . . . unless Congress clearly and unambiguously says otherwise”). P.389, n.44. Delete “128 S. Ct. at 2719–20” in the third line of the footnote and replace it with the following: 554 U.S. at 328–30 P.389, n.45. Add the following to the end of the footnote: See Pub. L. No. 111-211, § 206, 124 Stat. 2258, 2264 (to be codified as a note to 25 U.S.C. § 2801) (“Nothing in this [Tribal Law and Order] Act [of 2010] confers on an Indian tribe criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians.”) P.390, n.48. Delete “128 S. Ct. 2709, 2720” in the second line of the footnote and replace it with the following: 554 U.S. 316, 330–31 P.390, n.50. Add the following to line 1 of the footnote before the semi-colon: ; Water Wheel Camp Recreational Area, Inc. v. LaRance, 642 F.3d 802, 812 (9th Cir. 2011) (tribe’s “right to exclude non-Indians from tribal land includes the power to regulate them unless Congress has said otherwise, or unless the Supreme Court has recognized that such power conflicts with federal interests promoting tribal self-government”) (footnote omitted) P.392, n.68. Add the following to the end of the footnote: The Oregon Court of Appeals has held that the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission may authorize ceremonial hunting permits for the Grand Ronde Tribes to engage in off-reservation hunting not specifically described in the congressionally-authorized agreement. Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians v. Fish & Wildlife Comm’n, ___ P.3d ___ , 2011 WL 3117880 (Or. Ct. App. 2011). P.394, n.82. Add the following to the end of the footnote before the period: ; see generally Michelle Smith & Janet C. Neuman, Keeping Indian Claims Commission Decisions in Their Place: Assessing the Preclusive Effect of ICC Decisions in Litigation Over Off-Reservation Treaty Fishing Rights, 31 U. Haw. L. Rev. 75 Fish and Wildlife Regulation 475, 505 (2009) (criticizing Molini as an improper application of claim preclusion principles because (1) “a claim will not be precluded if a party could not have relied on a particular theory of the case or pursued a certain remedy or form...


pdf