and for your help thank you so much happy to be here a little bit of housekeeping the case jari versus bar has been removed from calendar of the case united states versus when has been submitted on the briefs and the case m the highest expression and most important expression of their sovereignty is through their careful management of the salmon fishery within a year off as a vacation i seem to see that imperiled and faces numerous existential threats that's why the precluded precluded his ability to fish without a state license or your authorization that's it and that's it yes that's right so you're seeking relief only against him in his personal capacity yes yes that's true against them and we're not in a riving at such a declaration with the district court have to make any determination that the york has an exclusive fishing right now we would have to really all we need the court to look at you be asking you're all set match is against his fishing rights versus the tribes so you're not challenging the rule nineteen decision with respect to the broader question as to whether or not there reservation and its we've we haven't been able to resolve this issue it's been an unclear conclusion of what his rights are so we get a clear declaration by the court of really what that fact of his who by your ac asserts as a protected interest and this court has been been clear that you can't merely claim an interest but you have to look at the practical circumstances the facts of the case to see really examine what that interest is to make sure it is falls within or under ru relief which a district court found they couldn't afford complete relief because of this potential implication of this right i mean off reservation reserve right well off reservation rights arise through tre express treaty language statutes or can get congressional ratified agreements and there just there isn't any of that in this case there's no statutes there's no was treaty actually does not cede any lands united states which would normally give rise to an asian right so this is a very different circumstance here whereas that you're off fishing rights within this reservation are just are well founded we've had cases for decades affirming the right of the iraq t river reservation and now the your rock reservation would you like to get that legal question resolved well that's but that's not the issue before the court i'm asking you a different question would you like to get the legal question resolved what the rights are for the ranch or views of in iraq and sam we would like to sit down with iraq the answer that question is yes would you like it to be resolved by a court we don't think that a court is an appropriate place to resolve that issue and we think that the way the model you even though it's a legal question you don't want to court to resolve it ultimately if a court has to resolve the question so be it but we don't we think that what responsible governments do as a res guinea did in this case where we've asked the iraq tried not once not twice but three times to sit down and as sovern tribal governments co manage the resource to ensure its protection and sustainability reason gainey has a fishing ordinance they've been comprehensively regulating the resource before there were the your ox organized of the your ox had a reservation there is a guinea tribal members have been fishing both on the reservation and you have to remember that the klamath river flows through the reason guinea reservation and so york is asserting it has the right to regulate rosicky any fisherman while they are within the boundaries of their own reservation fishy now it's truly a gift given the resistance of the your ox to the claim it sounds as though government to government to go she asian hasn't worked out around well you still don't want to go to court to get that resolved well the reason that the reason it hasn't worked out very well your honor is because europe wants to litigate it they want to they want they want to take their best shot at trying to terminate their sound so you don't want to have to get a question at this point your honor i mean i haven't to be honest with haven't set down with my clients and pose that question to him what my clients have authorized me to do was to file a motion to dismiss on the grounds that there is a game the ranch or enjoy sovereign immunity from suit cannot be joined in this litigation and they're required to be fifteen excepted fifteen thousand dollars to give up any individual rights that he has deficient well for well the reservation but what was he paid for and what rights does he have that's what that does so it's a live edition would be would help to resolve against him but does anyone doubts that if your rock started to litigate against gary dowd that he would assert as a defense that he has been authorized licensed and regulated by the rizieq in iran's shari'a and he has the privilege to fish based upon their reserve federal reserve right that they have authorized him to exercise why do you have to resolve that question to enforce the the agreement well it's not it's not an issue it's not it's not a fact that the district court needed to apply are needed to look to to apply the rule money so that he would not be in a role member of the iraq tribe would not claim an interest in any lands owned by the united states of america for the europe tribe and would not exercise or your rock fishing right he's doing none of those things he under not iraq fishing write a resume gaining the right so what was what was the whole purpose of of congress adopting that provision in the settlement or in the act to make sure that no your rock such as gary though you and the euro have a different reading of what this agreement for fifteen thousand dollars was and if you're right the district guard will to say you're right but if they're right sounds as though he gave up whatever fishing rights might have had period they may be wrong but that's their argument and that's exactly my point when they say that gary dad's been cited three times for illegally fishing our position is he wasn't illegally fishing he had a license and the reason i didn't answer my question is why you cannot that question the effect of the agreement be resolved without deciding the rights of the ranch area that is to say if it turns out that the iraq's are right and i don't know the answer to that question if it turns out the your oxen are right whether or not the rancher riya has fishing rights he's given up his personal fishing rights that's their argument but again you know they may be wrong with that's their argument and understood and that's why  the right but but but gary dowd has no rights these are sovereign rights these are the rights of the government it's a tribal right and it's the right to enact their own fishing laws and to govern themselves on their reservation garry dowd when he goes out to fish he exercises a receipt gainey reserved fishing right and the only reason he can fish is because risen again he has authorized him to do so and regulates him so if you're rock and again he have to look at their brief what they're claiming is they have the exclusive right to regulate fishing of rizzi guinea fishermen on the klamath river and if they litigate do and so as a result the district court is going to is going to have to address the issue of does rizzi gainey have a reserved fishing right and can they authorize gary dowd to go into the river and fish and if they rule against  mr dowd that's an extinguishment or terminations of or is again he's fishing rights and it most certainly will subject gary dowd to conflicting judgments because he will then go and get his fishing license from years ago i stood in front of this very court and argued blake versus arnett and this court arguing that the the europe said the right to fish in the klamath river and this court held it doesn't matter whether reservation is created by treaty statute or executive order it's all federal law under the supremacy clause of the united states and the rights that attach are the same so whether or not risen again is exercising a reserved fishing right based upon statute or whether it's exercising a reserve right based upon treaty there is no difference it's still a federally protected right and under the supremacy clause of the united states constitution is the supreme law of the land and therefore that this court's previous  comix claimed was their territory reserved exclusive lead to them under the treaty but in that case there was no separate agreement by an individual member that at least by the argument of one side or the other had given up whatever rights he might have been able to exercise as tribal member that is correct but the your key words and listening to what you just said your honor was giving up whatever rights he had as a tribal member as a tribal member gary down did not right as opposed to any rights that were purchased or or or he was paid for and and and he's not capable of representing rizieq in his interest in this because i that he was paid for or whether it's arisen gainey right he only has with the sovereign government authorizes him to do and therefore he's not in the position is this is a citizen of the united states in a position to defend the sovereign rights of the united states in federal court the same is true for a tribal citizen in its government he has no rights the right is a tribal right he he it's a sovereign right to enact this for there is going into and that their own two points the skokomish decision really doesn't bear on this case in that case there was one treaty signed by four tribes they guaranteed each equal off reservation and rights it was a right years that tribes do have tribal exclusive tribal rights on the reservations but that's of course with this court need not get there and can and again she seeks this declaration of what the effect of age of the who by your settlement act was