are representing the appellant villages i would like to reserve five minutes for rebuttal you may do so but you have to help keep track of your own time because that will show the total time remaining thank you the basic question here is whether native villages can hold the aboriginal title including exclusive aboriginal fishing rights to their traditional mining in fishing grounds on the outer continental holding that aboriginal rights are barred by federal paramount amounts to a judicial extinguishment this violates the separation of powers member state it mandated by the constitute if not extinguishment at least a limitation upon the aboriginal right that your quiet is claiming to the fishery in the outer continental shelf region plot to apply to aboriginal rights well i'm a little confused as i understand your position the villagers are not subject to compliance with these they are few regulations that all they can take as much space as they want wherever they want to take it within the outer continental shelf region that they claim is their right yes unless and until congress provides otherwise or  take as much as they want to either commercially or sport or subsistence despite the magnuson act despite the other statutes your answer was yes but i'm not sure that's true because your position is they have hypothetical questions as to a possible conflict between exclusive right to fish and hunt and explore all the other natural resources in an area now that's what adam and remaining is back won't change that a lot of you know claiming that you're not claiming a rights should have a monopoly on commercial fishing in the two hundred mile zone you know felt well only within their aboriginal territories the answer would be yes unless and until congress provides otherwise which it certainly can why shouldn't we the magnificent act and the elephant act to provide otherwise i think it's well established that aboriginal rights are subject to the unless the intent of congress is plain and unambiguous plain and they stepped right in the act what it did they used words such as all in the act and that they there's also support basically everybody but natives gets to put it that the natives get twenty fish per day and they get an additional mile calbert run all small ones maybe thirty pounds so you're looking at six hundred aggregate aggregate harvest lemon not individual harmless lemon for the tribes it resources could be perfectly protected but his concerts conservation regulations that were going to apply to aboriginal client well  i'm not you're holding any act one where you are obviously here to ask that you act one be over rule right and i'm asking you what is it in the holding of that case that prejudice is your client we recognize your client had rights they were simply not exclusive that's all there was nothing changed other than it was subject to  others can't fish in our area if we can claim aboriginal title we can exploit all the resources including mineral exclusivity so this is really about i i ask you this i think i've heard you say two different things about what you are seeking to establish in this suit you began by saying that you start to establish the exclusive right of the villagers to do nothing in nyack one that prevents that and there's nothing and i act one that prevents that well you know but the second turn can prevent and the congress can prevent it why haven't they prevented it already i mean cohen such rights of finding and fixing is the indian tribes may enjoy or suffer persons just to federal regulation we have federal regulation in the form of two statutes the magnificent act and the assertion of our right to fish free of federal regulations based on aboriginal rights was precluded are barred by the doctrine of federal paramount see we think that's correct even though there are some other defenses we think would be applicable we we are talking about we're not talking about with every mouse a short absolute now it's i don't recall i don't recall anything in the record that show that any of the indians involved or any of the natives involved at the moment is fishing subsistence or otherwise anyone had fished more than three miles so i think it's fair to say that both sides have introduced evidence which is conflicting our anthropologist reports that no there is no evidence but i think it got to somebody aboriginal fishing that began seven thousand years ago but now they have better equipment to do it so they can go farther well it depends on how the court defines a right and whether there is a right you know if it's the village of gambell three casework to govern that would mean a continuation of traditional subsistence in our view village of gambell three was incorrectly decided because even those rights would conflict with paramount rights or indian aboriginal rice is that correct that is correct but the rationale of the case was there any statu black letter law that says congress has unlimited power to limit indian treaty rights indian average all rights and so on but it's a congressional power indeed as irrational power that under our case law has to be exercised clearly problems with the right they assert i think what the district court did here was to correctly really cut to the chase and say putting all those problems aside and putting aside the fact that if there were rights they could generally be regulated by conservation regulations we just have a fundamental problem with federal paramount city council i'm wondering if you need as much as you're contending for and it may be that you do it maybe that you know here's here's what's on my mind and it has to be perfectly clear that congress is that it is the board meeting aboriginal rights whatever they may be to some congressional scheme i'm wondering why the halibut act by the national government however even if we were to assume otherwise even if we were to assume game of three i'm having trouble seeing how this is somebody dropping a line in the water to feed  family we're talking here an absolute bare minimum of three hundred pounds per day for every man woman and child out there on the boat three hundred sixty five days a year of permissible fishing under the system that the  challenging no one can eat that much fish i'm also thinking this whole thing is kind of sectional you need an awfully long string to fish more than three miles out and no traditional fishing method without  well that's leading to my concern why eleven judge in bank court been convened you would like this to overrule gamble's three at least in part the direction better would like us to overrule act one i'm wondering why we have to do either with respect to the narrow issue that is presented in this case specifically what was a judge holland held that is there's a greater conflict here because the native villages are trying to stop a federal regulation that's generally applicable that's more than that was ok but do we do we have to get in to gamble three and i six a national program for the conservation instead of one of the fish for its sources of the united states is necessary to prevent overfishing to rebuild over the stock to ensure conservation it's realized the full potential of the nation permit on board specifying the individual fishing photo lab for the vessel and anyone who receives the regulated fish must possess a registered buyer permit now the plaintiffs in this case say that that scheme conservation separate conservation regulations that the secretary would adopt to apply to the tribes we'd be limited if it was for conservation purposes that's what mid water trawlers pardon why do you recognize because mid water troller status that apple aboriginal fishing rights reserved in the treaty fishing cases can be regulated slowly for conservation purposes for no other purposes non security fisherman can be regulated for any other legitimate purpose but treating fishermen and we're talking about reserved aboriginal rights under the treaty can only be