INDIAN FISH AND WILDUFE RESOURCE 

ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 1993 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCO:.\lMITTEE OX KATIVE AMERICAN AFFAIRS 

OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

ON 

H.R. 2874 

TO IMPROVE THE MANAGEMENT OF INDIAN FISH AND WILDLIFE 

RESOURCES ON INDIAN LANDS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES 

83-120 

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, OCTOBER 8, 1993 

Serial No. 103-49 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

WASHINGTON : 1994 
COMMITIEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

GEORGE MILLER, California, Chairman 

PHILIP R. SHARP, Indiana DON YOUNG, Alaska, 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts Ranking Republican Member 

AUSTIN J. MURPHY, Pennsylvania JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah 

NICK JOE RAHALL II, West Virginia BARBARA F. VUCANOVICH, Nevada 

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

PAT WILLIAMS, Montana ROBERT F . (BOB) SMITH, Oregon 

RON DE LUGO, Virgin Islands CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming 

SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

RICHARD H. LEHMAN, California JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado 

BILL RICHARDSON, New Mexico JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana 

Samoa KEN CALVERT, California 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota SCOTT MciNNIS, Colorado 

LARRY LAROCCO, Idaho RICHARD W. POMBO, California 

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii JAY DICKEY, Arkansas 

CALVIN M. DOOLEY, Calif01;nia 

CARLOS ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto Rico 

KARAN ENGLISH, Arizona 

KAREN SHEPHERD, Utah 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia 

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam 

SAM FARR, California 

LANE EVANS, Illinois 

PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii 

THOMAS J. BARLOW III, Kentucky 

THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin 

JOHN LAWRENCE, Staff Director 

RICHARD MELTZER, General Counsel 

DANIEL VAL KlsH, Republican Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITIEE ON NATIVE AMERICAN AFFAIRS 

BILL RICHARDSON, New Mexico, Chairman 

PAT WILLIAMS, Montana CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming, 

SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut Ranking Republican Member 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American DON YOUNG, Alaska 

Samoa RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota KEN CALVERT, California 

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii 

KARAN ENGLISH, Arizona 

TADD JOHNSON, Staff Director 

MARIE HOWARD, Legislative Staff 

STEVEN J.W. HEELEY, Counsel 

JUNE LORENZO, Legislative Staff 

BARBARA ROBLES, Clerk 

RICHARD HoUGHTON, Republican Counsel on Native American Affairs 

(II) 
CONTENTS 

Page 

Hearing held: October 8, 1993 .. ....... ...................................... .... ..... .......... ... .... .... ... 1 

Text of the bill: H.R. 287 4 ......... .... ..... .... .... ...... ............... ........... .... ..... .......... ....... ... 3 

Section-by-section analysis ...... .... .. ..... .... .... ................. ... ...... .... ..... ................. .... ..... 23 

Background infonnation ... ........ ... ..... ... .... ... .......... ... ........ .. .... . .. ...... .... ..... .... .... .... .... 27 

Member statements: Hon. Bill Richardson ..... ..... .... .... .. ... . ..... .... ..... .... .. . . .. ....... .... ...... ......... .... .... .. . ... 1 

Witness statements: 

Patrick A. Hayes, Director, Office of Trust Responsibilities, Bureau of 

Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior, accompanied by Gary 

Rankel, Chief, Branch of Fish, Wildlife and Recreation ......... ...... ........... .. 30 

Panel consisting of: 

Delvis Heath, chief, Wann Springs Tribe, and member, Tribal Council of Confederated Tribes of Wann Springs, accompanied by Hon. 

Nelson Wallulatum, chief, Wasco Tribe, and member Tribal Council 

of Confederated Tribes of Wann Springs, OR, and Howard G. 

Arnett, Esq., tribal attorney ................................................................. 45 

Harrison Talgo, Sr., chainnan, San Carlos Apache Tribe, Arizona ...... 55 

Julia Davis, vice chairperson, Nez Perce Tribal Executive Committee, Lapwai, ID .............................. ... ............................................................. 61 

George Dupuis, vice chainnan, Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior 

Chippewa, Cloquet, MN ........... ..... ................... ..................................... 66 

Bill Frank, Jr., chainnan, Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, 

Olympia, WA ... .. ............. .... .... ... .......... .................. .... .... .... ..... .... .... ........ 72 

Don Wedll, Commissioner of Natural Resources, Mille Lacs Band 

of Ojibwe Indians, Onamia, MN ............................ ........ ....................... 76 

Mark Heckert, executive director, InterTribal Bison Cooperative, 

Rapid City, SD ......... .............................................................................. 82 

APPENDIX 

OCTOBER 8, 1993 

Additional material submitted for the hearing record from: 

Subcommittee on Native American Affairs, Committee on Natural Re- sources: Memorandum from Assistant Secretary, Indian Affairs, to Solicitor dated August 5, 1993, regarding conservation enforcement au- thority .............. .. ............................................................................... ... .... ...... 97 

State of Wisconsin: Letter to Chainnan Richardson dated October 22, 

1993, from George E. Meyer, Secretary, Department of Natural Re- sources with views on H.R. 2874 ................................................................. 100 

State of Minnesota: Letter to Chainnan Richardson dated October 28, 

1993, from Rodney W. Sando, Commissioner, with views on H.R. 2874 .. 103 

Great Lakes Indian Fish & Wildlife Commission, Odanah, WI: Letter 

to Chainnan Richardson dated October 28, 1993, from James H. 

Schlender, executive administrator, with views on H.R. 2874 .................. 106 

Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Nation: Prepared statement of Michael T. Pablo, tribal chainnan .............................. 111 

Crow Creek Sioux Tribe: letter to Subcommittee on Native American 

Affairs staff, dated October 6, 1993, from Tony Willman, C.C.S.T. biologist, and Duane Big Eagle, chainnan, Crow Creek Sioux Tribe ............... 119 

Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin, Keshena, WI: Prepared statement 120 

Puyallup Tribe of Indians: Prepared statement of William A. Warren, fisheries management biologist for the Puyallup Tribe, Roberta Young, 

chairwoman ..... ........... ............. .... ....... ................. .. ....... .... .... .... ..... .... ....... ..... 127 

(III) 
IV 

Page 

Additional material submitted for the hearing record from-Continued 

Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, Minnesota: Prepared statement 

of Hon. Bobby Whitefeather, secretary ....................................................... 131 

Native American Fish & Wildlife Society: Prepared statement of Ken 

Poynter, executive director ........................................................................... 138 

International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies: Prepared statement of R. Max Peterson, executive vice president ................................... 143 

Sport Fishing Institute, Washington, DC: Letter to Chairman Richardson 

dated October 22, 1993, from Norville S. Prosser, vice president, including attachments ... ............... .... .. ..... .. .... ......... ...... ...................... ........ .... ... .. . .. 152 
H.R. 2874, TO IMPROVE THE MANAGEMENT OF 

INDIAN FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES 

ON INDIAN LANDS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES 

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 8, 1993 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIVE AMERICAN AFFAIRS, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:25 p.m. in Room 

1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Bill Richardson 

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BILL RICHARDSON 

Mr. RICHARDSON. The committee will come to order. Today we 

will be taking testimony on H.R. 2874, the Indian Fish and Wildlife 

Resource Enhancement Act. 

This bill provides for the preservation, protection, and enhancement of Indian fish and wildlife resources. It also reaffirms the 

Federal trust responsibility for the management of these resources 

by the United States and the tribes as co-managers. 

As we near the end of this century, there are still many tribes 

across the land that depend on hunting, fishing, and gathering for 

their livelihoods. Many tribal people have chosen this traditional 

lifestyle. Others use the fish and wildlife resources of the tribe to 

supplement their diets. 

As with all other areas of Indian life, the Federal Government 

has a trust responsibility to protect the resources which the tribes 

harvest in their hunting and fishing activities. The United States 

has a general responsibility to ensure that tribal resources are 

managed with the highest and best management techniques. 

In spite of this trust obligation, the management of Indian fish 

and wildlife is frequently not on a par with other Federal programs. 

The Federal trust responsibility for the management of Indian 

fish and wildlife resources stems from the treaty obligations and 

Federal statutes. This bill delineates these duties in an effort to ensure that the Secretary and the tribes co-manage these resources 

in a prudent, efficient and productive manner. 

It provides a statutory framework for the Secretary to carry out 

his responsibility to tribes for fish and wildlife resources. 

The bill establishes an Indian Fish and Wildlife Resource Management Program within the BIA. It provides that all Department 

( 1) 
2 

actions affecting Indian fish and wildlife resources are to be done 

with tribal consultation. 

It also establishes an Indian fish hatchery program within the 

BIA, as well as an Indian Bison Conservation Program. 

Finally, the bill provides for internships, cooperative education 

programs, and a scholarship program to be established with the 

Department of Interior. All of these education programs would be 

for Indian students in an effort to bring more Native Americans 

into technical and leadership positions in the area of fish and wildlife management. The bill reflects the issues and concerns that you brought to the 

attention of this subcommittee back in February. 

I appreciate all your thoughtful comments as I look forward to 

working with you to see this bill signed into law. At this time, I 

ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed, background, and 

section-by-section analysis be made part of the record. 

I would also ask that all witnesses summarize their statements 

in five minutes. Your full written statements will be made part of 

the record, which will be open for two weeks. 

[Text of the bill, H.R. 2874, and section-by-section analysis follow:] 
3 

103D CONGRESS 

1ST SESSIO:\' H. R. 2874 

To imprm·e the mana!("ement of Indian fish and wildlife resources on Indian 

lands, and for other purposes. 

I~ THE HOUSE OF REPRESE~TATIVES 

AUGUST 4, 1993 

lllr. RICHARDSOX (for himself and l\lr. THmiA,'l of Wyoming) introduced the 

follo,,·ing hill; which was referred to the Committee on Katural Resources 

A BILL 

To improve the management of Indian fish and wildlife 

resources on Indian lands, and for other purposes. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and Ilouse of Represenfa2 lives of the Um:ted States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Aet may be eited as the "Indian Fish and WildS life Resource Enhancement Act of 1993". 

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

7 The Conhrr·ess finds and declares that8 ( 1) the United States and Indian tribes have a 

9 government-to-government relationship; 
4 

2 

1 (2) the United States has a trust responsibility 

2 to protect, conserve, and enhance Indian fish and 

3 wildlife resources consistent with its fiduciary obliga4 tion to and its unique relationship \Vith Indian 

5 tribes. This trust responsibility extends to all Fed6 eral agencies and departments and absent a clear ex7 pression of congressional intent to the contrary, the 

8 United States has a duty to administer F ederal fish 

9 and vvildlife conservation laws in a manner consist10 cnt with the treaty rights of Indian tribes; 

11 (3) F ederal statutes and regulations affecting 

12 Indian fish and wildlife resources and tribal resource 

13 management activities shall be interpreted in accord14 ance with the trust responsibility set forth in this 

15 Act; 

16 ( 4) fish and wildlife resources located on Indian 

17 lands and treaty-ceded territory continue to provide 

18 a resom·ce base for the subsistence, cultural enrich19 ment, and economic support of Indian tJ·ibes and in20 dividual Indians; 

21 (5) Indian tribes have jurisdiction over Indian 

22 and non-Indian hunting and fishing activities on ln23 dian reservations and function as comanagers with 

24 tribal, States, and FcdeJ•al authorities to carry out 

25 shared management responsibilities for fish and 
5 

3 

wildlife resources arising from treaties, statutes, or 

2 court orders; 

3 (6) the United States has an obligation to pro4 vide assistance to Indian tribes to monitor and regu5 late Indian hunting and fishing activities, to protect 

6 and conserve populations and habitats of tribal fish 

7 and wildlife resources, and to maintain fish hatch8 cries and other facilities required for the prudent 

9 management, enhancement, and mitigation of fish 

10 and wildlife resources; and 

11 (7) increased and improved management of In12 dian fish and \Vildlife resources \viii yield increased 

13 economic returns, enhance Indian self-determination, 

14 promote employment opportunities, and improve the 

15 social and economic well-being of Indian and sur16 rounding communities. 

17 SEC. 3. PURPOSES. 

18 The purposes of this Act are19 ( 1) to reaffirm and protect Indian hunting, 

20 fishing, and gathering rights and to provide for the 

21 conservation, prudent management, enhancement, 

22 orderly development and use of the resources upon 

23 which the meaningful exercise of such rights depend; 

24 (2) to maximize tribal capability and flexibility 

25 in managing fish and wildlife resources for the con-
6 

4 

1 tinuing benefit of Indian people, and in comanaging 

2 shared resources for the benefit of the ~ation, in a 

3 manner consistent with Indian trust and rights pro4 tection responsibilities; 

5 (3) to support Indian self-determination and 

6 tribal self-governance by authorizing and encourag7 ing government-to-government communications and 

8 cooperative agreements between Federal, State, and 

9 local governments and to foster tribal participation 

10 in mnltijurisdictional fish and wildlife resource deci11 sionmaking; and 

12 ( 4) to establish an Indian Fish and Wildlife Re13 source }lanagemcnt Education Assistance Program 

14 within the Bureau of Indian Affairs to promote and 

15 develop full tribal capability and multidisciplinary 

16 competence in managing fish and ''ildlife resource 

17 programs. 

18 SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS. 

19 For the purposes of this Act: 

20 (1) The term "Bureau" means the Bureau of 

21 Indian Affairs within the Department of the Inte22 nor. 

23 (3) The term "Indian fish hatchery" means any 

24 multi- or single-purpose facility owned or operated 

25 by an Ind ian tribe or the Bureau, or b~· the United 
7 

5 

States Fish and Wildlife Service on an Indian res2 ervation, which is engaged in the spmming, hatch3 ing, rearing, holding or caring for or stocking of 

4 fish, including any related research and diagnostic 

5 fish health facility. 

6 (3) The term " fish hatchery maintenance" 

7 means work that is required at periodic inten:als to 

8 prolong the life of a fish hatchery and its compo9 nents and associated equipment. 

10 (4) The term "fish hatchery rehabilitation" 

11 means work that is required to address the physical 

12 deterioration or functional obsolescence of a fish 

13 hatchery building, structure or other fa cility compo14 nent, or to repair, modify, or improve a fish hateh15 cry building, structure or other facility component. 

16 (5) The term "forest land management activ17 it,v" has the same meaning given to such term by 

18 section 304(4) of the Indian Forest Hesources :\Ian19 agement Act (25 U.S.C. 3103(4)). 

20 (6) The term "Indian fish and ''ildlife re21 source" means any species of animal or plant life lo22 cated on Indian reservations or in which Indians 

23 haYe a right protected by Federal law to fish, hunt, 

24 trap, or gather for subsistence, ceremonial, reG25 reational or commercial purposes, or for which an 
8 

6 

Indian tribe has management or comanagement re2 sponsibilities. 

3 (7) The term "Indian" means a member of an 

4 Indian tribe as defined in section 4 of the Indian 

5 Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act 

6 (25 U.S.C. 450b). 

7 (8) The term "Indian land" means land, the 

8 title to which is held by9 (A) the United States m trust for an In10 dian or Indian tribe; or 

11 (B) an Indian or Indian tribe, and is sub12 ject to restrictions against alienation. 

13 (9) The term " Indian reservation" includes res14 ervations established pursuant to treaties, Acts of 

15 Congress or Executive orders, and public domain In16 dian allotments, and former Indian reservations in 

17 the State of Oklahoma. 

18 (10) The term "Indian tribe" means any Indian 

19 tribe, band, nation, pueblo, or other organized group 

20 or community which is recognized as eligible for the 

21 special programs and services provided by the Unit22 ed States to Indians because of their status as Indi23 ans. 

24 (11 ) The term "integrated resource manage25 ment plan" means the plan developed P\lrsuant to 
9 

7 

1 the process used by tribal governments to assess 

2 available resources and to provide identified holistic 

3 management objectives that include quality of life, 

4 production goals and landscape descriptions of all 

5 designated resources that may include (but not be 

6 limited to) water, fish, wildlife, forestry, agriculture, 

7 minerals, and recreation, as well as community and 

8 municipal resources, and may include any previously 

9 adopted tribal codes and plans related to such re10 sources. 

11 (12) The term "resource management activi12 ties" means all activities performed in managing In13 dian fish and wildlife resources. This term shall not 

14 include forest land management activities. 

15 (13) The term "Secretary" means the Secretary 

16 of the Interior. 

17 (14) The term "treaty ceded territory" means 

18 the land ceded to the United States by treaty upon 

19 which the ceding tribe or tribes retain hunting, fish-

. 20 ing, and gathering rights. 

21 (15) The term "tribal organization" has the 

22 meaning given to such term by section 4 of the In23 dian Self-Determination and Education Assistance 

24 Act (25 U.S.C. 450b). 
10 

8 

SEC. 5. INDIAN FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCE MANAGE1 

2 MENT PROGRAM. 

3 (a) lVl.At'\'AGEME!\T OBJECTIVES.-Consistent with 

4 the provisions of the Indian Self-Determination and Edu5 cation Assistance Act (Public Law 93-638), the Secretary 

6 shall provide for the management of Indian fish and wild7 life resources to achieve the following objectives: 

8 (1) To protect, conserve, and enhance fish and 

9 wildlife resources that are important to Indian tribes 

10 for subsistence, cultural enrichment, and economic 

11 development and to promote the development of 

12 these resources for the benefit of Indian tribes and 

13 their members. 

14 (2) To protect Indian hunting, fishing, and 

15 gathering rights guaranteed to Indian tribes by the 

16 United States through treaty, statute, or Executive 

17 order. 

18 (3) To provide for the development and en19 hancement of the capacities of Indian tribes to man20 age Indian fish and wildlife resources. 

21 ( 4) To selectively develop and increase produc22 tion of certain fish and wildlife resources in order to 

23 provide for the subsistence, economic, and employ24 ment needs of Indian tribes. 

25 ( 5) To manage Indian ·fish and wildlife re26 sources consistent with integrated resource manage-
11 

9 

ment plans in order to protect and maintain other 

2 values such as Indian forest resources, Indian agri3 cultural resources, cultural resources, aesthetics, 

4 recreation, and other traditional values. 

5 (b) lVlAKAGEMENT PROGRA.l\L-(1) The Secretary, in 

6 full consultation "'ith Indian tribes, shall establish the In7 dian Fish and Wildlife Resource Management Program in 

8 order to achieve the objectives set forth in subsection (a). 

9 (2) The Secretary shall promote and provide assist10 ance for the tribal management of Indian fish and wildlife 

11 resources through contracts, cooperative agreements, or 

12 grants under the Indian Self-Determination Act (25 

13 U.S.C. 450 ct. seq.). 

14 (3) The Secretary, upon the request of any Indian 

15 tribe or tribal organization, shall enter into a contract '"ith 

16 the tribe or tribal organization to plan, conduct, and ad17 minister any program within the Department of the Inte18 rior which affects Indian fish and '"ildlife resources and 

19 is cur ent!~,. administered by the Secretary. 

20 (c) ~IANAGE.:I!EKT ACTTYITIES.-lndian fish and 

21 wildlife resource management activities carried out under 

22 the program established under subsection (b) may include 

23 (but shall not be limited to)-
12 

10 

(1) the development, implementation, and en2 forcement of tribal codes, ordinances, and regula3 tions; 

4 (2) the development and implementation of re5 source and management plans, surveys, and inven6 tories; 

7 (3) conducting fish and ·wildlife population and 

8 life history investigations, habitat investigations, 

9 habitat restoration, harvest management, and use 

10 studies; 

11 ( 4) fish production and hatchery management; 

12 (5) the development of tribal conservation pro13 grams, including employment and training of tribal 

14 conservation enforcement officers; and 

15 (6) participation in joint or cooperative man16 agement fish and wildlife resources on a regional 

17 basis with Federal, State, Tribal, and local authori18 ties. 

19 (d) ASSISTANCE.-The Secretary is authorized to 

20 provide financial and technical assistance to enable Indian 

21 tribes to22 ( 1) conduct a review of existing tribal codes, or23 dinances, and regulations governing the management 

24 of fish and wildlife resources; 
13 

11 

(2) update and revise tribal codes, ordinances, 

2 and regulations governing tribal fish and wildlife re3 source protection and use; 

4 (3) determine and document the need for tribal 

5 conservation officers, tribal fisheries and \\ildlife bi6 ologists, and other professionals to administer In7 dian fish and wildlife resource management pro8 grams; 

9 ( 4) provide training to and develop curricula for 

10 Indian fish and wildlife resource personnel, including 

11 tribal conservation officers, which incorporate law 

12 enforcement, fish and wildlife conservation, identi13 fication and resource management principles and 

14 techniques; and 

15 (5) determine and document the condition of 

16 the Indian fish and wildlife resources. 

17 (e) lKDIAN FISH Al\D WILDI,JFE RESOUHCE :\IAN18 AGEMENT PLAKS.-(1) To meet the management objec19 tives set forth in subsection (a), an Indian fish and wildlife 

20 resource management plan shall be developed and imple21 mented as follows: 

22 (A) Pursuant to a self-determination contract 

23 or self-governance compact under the Indian Self24 Determination .Act, an Indian tribe may develop or 

25 implement an Indian fish and \\ikllife management 
14 

12 

1 plan. Subject to the provisions of subparagraph (C), 

2 the tribe shall have broad discretion in designing 

3 and carrying out the planning process. 

4 (B) If a tribe chooses not to contract the devel5 opment or implementation to plan, the Secretary 

6 shall develop or implement the plan in close con7 sultation with the affected tribe. 

8 (C) Whether developed directly by the tribe or 

9 by the Secretary, the plan shall10 (i) determine the condition of fish and 

11 ·wildlife resources and habitat conditions, 

12 (ii) identify specific tribal fish and wildlife 

13 resource goals and objectives, 

14 (iii) establish management objectives for 

15 the resources, 

16 (iv) define critical values of the Indian 

17 tribe and its members and provide identified ho18 listie management objectives, 

19 (v) be developed through public meetings, 

20 (vi) use the public meeting records, exist21 mg survey documents, reports, and other re22 search from Federal agencies and tribal com23 munity colleges, and 

24 (vii) be completed v .. ithin three years of the 

25 initiation of acti"ity to establish the plan. 
15 

13 

1 (2) Indian fish and wildlife management plans devel2 oped and approved under this section shall govern the 

3 management and administration of Indian fish and wild4 life resources by the Bureau and the Indian tribal governS ment. 

6 SEC. 6. TRffiAL CONSULTATION. 

7 The Secretary, in any departmental action which af8 fects Indian fish and wildlife resources, shall fully consult 

9 with and seek the participation of Indian tribes in a man10 ner consistent "vith the Federal trust responsibility and 

11 the government-to-government relationship between In12 dian tribes and the Federal Government. 

13 SEC. 7. INDIAN FISH HATCHERY PROGRAM. 

14 (a) ESTABLISHMEI\T.-The Secretary, with the full 

15 and active participation of Indian tribes, shall establish 

16 and administer an Indian Fish Hatchery Program within 

17 the Bureau of Indian Affairs to produce and distribute 

18 to Indian tribes a variety of species of fish to assist Indian 

19 tribes to develop tribal hatcheries and enhance fish re20 sources on the reservation. 

21 (b) NEEDS REPORT.-Within one year after the date 

22 of enactment of this Act, the Secretary, with the full and 

23 active participation of Indian tribes, shall transmit a re24 port to the Congress identifying the facilities which com25 prise the Indian Fish Hatchery Program, the mainte-
16 

14 

nance, rehabilitation, and construction needs of such fa2 cilities, and providing a plan for their administration and 

3 cost-effective operation. 

4 SEC. 8. INDIAN BISON CONSERVATION PROGRAM. 

5 (a) GENERAL AUTHORIZATION.-The Secretary is 

6 authorized to enter into contracts with or make grants to 

7 Indian tribes and tribal organizations to develop and 

8 maintain an Indian Bison Conservation Program to meet 

9 tribal subsistence, ceremonial, commercial, and resource 

10 needs. 

11 (b) REQUIRED CONTENT.-An Indian Bison Con12 servation Program established under this section shall pro13 vide for the preservation, restoration, production, care and 

14 management of bison. 

15 (c) UsE OF FUNDS.-Funds provided under this sec16 tion may be used to17 ( 1) develop and implement bison management 

18 plans, surveys, and inventories; 

19 (2) conduct research on bison populations and 

20 habitat; 

21 (3) undertake habitat restoration; and 

22 ( 4) develop range ecology and conservation pro23 grams. 
17 

15 

SEC. 9. EDUCATION IN FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCE 

2 MANAGEMENT. 

3 (a) FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES li'\'l'ERN PR0-

4 GRAM.-(1) The Secretary shall establish a Fish and WildS life Resources Intern Program within the Bureau, for at 

6 least 20 Indian fish and wildlife intern positions. Such po7 sitions shall be in addition to the forester intern positions 

8 authorized in section 314(a) of the National Indian Forest 

9 Resources Management Act (25 U.S.C. 3113(a)). Individ10 uals selected as interns shall be enrolled full-time in ap11 proved post-secondary or graduate schools in curricula 

12 leading to advanced degrees in fish and wildlife resource 

13 management related fields. 

14 (2) The Secretary shall pay all costs for tuition, 

15 books, fees, and living e"-'])enses incurred by Indian fish 

16 and wildlife interns while attending approved study pro17 grams. 

18 (3) An Indian fish and v,rildlife resource intern shall 

19 be required to enter into an obligated service agreement 

20 to serve in a professional fish and wildlife management 

21 related capacity with an Indian tribe or tribal organiza22 tion, or with the Bureau of Indian Affairs or the United 

23 States Fish and Wildlife Service serving or benefiting In24 dian lands for one year for each year of education that 

25 the Secretary pays the intern's educational costs under 

26 paragraph (1). 
18 

16 

1 ( 4) An Indian fish and wildlife resource intern shall 

2 be required to report for service to his employing entity 

3 during any break in attendance at school of more than 

4 3 weeks duration. Time spent in such service shall be 

5 counted toward satisfaction of the intern's obligated serv6 ice agreement. 

7 (b) COOPERATIVE EDUCATION PROGfuUl.-(1) The 

8 Secretary shall maintain, through the Bureau of Indian 

9 Affairs, a cooperative education program for the purpose 

10 of recmiting promising Indian students who are enrolled 

11 in secondary schools, tribally controlled community col12 leges, and other postsecondary or graduate schools for em13 ployment as professional fisheries and wildlife biologists, 

14 or other related professional with an Indian tribe, tribal 

15 organization, or with the Bureau or \\<'ith the United 

16 States Fish and Wildlife Service serving or benefiting In17 dian lands. 

18 (2) Under this program, the Secretary shall pay all 

19 costs for tuition, books and fees of an Indian student who 

20 is enrolled in a course of study at an education institution 

21 with which the Secretary has entered into a cooperative 

22 agreement and who is interested in a career with an In23 dian tribe, tribal organization, or the Bureau or with the 

24 United States Fish and Wildlife Service serving or benefit25 ing Indian lands. 
19 

17 

(3) A recipient of assistance under this program shall 

2 be required to enter into an obligated service agreement 

3 to serve as a professional fish or wildlife biologist or other 

4 related professional position with an Indian tribe, tribal 

5 organization, the Bureau, or the United States Fish and 

6 Wildlife Service for one year for each year that the Sec7 retary pays the recipient's educational costs pursuant to 

8 paragraph (2). 

9 (c) SCHOI.u\RSHIP PROGRAM.-(1) The Secretary is 

10 authorized to grant fish and wildlife management scholar11 ships to Indians enrolled in accredited programs for post12 secondary and graduate fish and wildlife resource manage13 ment related fields of study as full-time students. 

14 (2) A recipient of a fish and ·wildlife management 

15 scholarship shall be required to enter into an obligated 

16 service agreement in which the recipient agrees to accept 

17 employment following completion of the recipient's course 

18 of study with an Indian tribe, a tribal organization, the 

19 Bureau, or the United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

20 for one year for each year the recipient received a scholar21 ship. 

22 (3) The Secretary shall not deny scholarship assist23 ance under this subsection solely on the basis of an appli24 cant's scholastic achievement if the applicant has been ad-
20 

18 

mitted to and remains in good standing in an accredited 

2 post-secondary or graduate institution. 

3 (d) FISH AND WILDLIFE EDUCATIOK Ol:TREACH.-

4 The Secreta!')' shall conduct, through the Bureau of In5 dian Mfairs, with the full and active participation of In6 dian tribes, a fish and wildlife resource and education out7 reach program to explain and stimulate interest in all as8 pccts of fish and wildlife management and to generate in9 terest in careers as fisheries and wildlife biologists. 

10 (c) POSTGRADUATE RECRCIT:\IEKT.-Thc Secretary 

11 shall establish and maintain a program to attract profes12 sional Indian fish and wildlife biologists who have grad13 uated from post-secondary or graduate schools for employ14 mcnt by Indian tribes, tribal organizations, the Bureau, 

15 or the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in ex16 change for the assumption by the Secretary of all or a 

17 portion of the outstanding student loans of the employee, 

18 depending upon the period of employment involved. 

19 (f) ADEQUACY OF PHOGRA:\IS.-Thc Secretary shall 

20 administer the programs described in this section until a 

21 suffic~ient number of personnel arc available to administer 

22 tribal fish and wildlife resource management pro£.,rrams on 

23 Indian lands. 

24 (g) OBLIGATED SEHYICE.-\Vherc an indi,~dual en25 tcrs into an agreement for obligated service in return for 
21 

19 

1 financial assistance under any provision of this section, 

2 the Secretary shall adopt such regulations as are nec3 essary to provide for an offer of employment to the recipi4 ent of such assistance as required by such provision. 

5 Where an offer of employment is not reasonably made, the 

6 regulations shall provide that such service shall no longer 

7 be required. 

8 (h) BREACH OF CONTRACT.-Where an individual 

9 fails to accept a reasonable offer of employment in fulfill10 ment of such obligated service or unreasonably terminates 

II or fails to perform the duties of such employment, the SecI2 retary shall require a repayment of the financial assistance 

13 provided, pro rated for the amount of time of obligated 

I4 service that was performed, together with interest on such 

I5 amount which would be payable if at the time the amounts 

16 were paid they were loans bearing interest at the maxi17 mum legal p1·evailing rate, as determined by the Secretary 

18 of the Treasury. 

19 SEC. 10. REGULATIONS. 

20 Except as otherwise provided by this Act, the Sec21 retary shall promulgate final regulations for the imple22 mentation of the Act v,ithin 18 months from the date of 

23 its enactment. All regulations promulgated pUJ"suant to 

24 this Act shall be developed by the Secretary with the full 

25 and active participation of Indian tribes. 
22 

20 

1 SEC. 11. SEVERABILITY. 

2 If any provision of this Act, or the application of any 

3 provision of this Act to any person or circumstance, is held 

4 invalid, the application of such provision or circumstance 

5 and the remainder of this Act shall not be affected there6 by. 

7 SEC. 12. TRUST RESPONSWILITY. 

8 Nothing in this Act shall be construed to9 ( 1) diminish or expand the trust responsibility 

I 0 of the United States toward Indian fish and wildlife 

11 resources, or any legal obligation or remedy result12 ing therefrom; or 

13 (2) abrogate, restrict, modify, alter, or diminish 

14 any treaty-reserved right of any Indian tribe, or any 

15 other rights of Indian tribes under existing Federal 

16 laws. 

17 SEC. 13. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

18 There are authorized to be appropriated such sums 

19 as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this Act. 
August 24, 1993 

SECfiON 1 

23 

SECfiON BY SECfiON ANALYSIS OF H.R. 2874, 

THE INDIAN FISH AND WILDUFE RESOURCE 

ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 1993 

Section 1 cites the short title of the Act as the " Indian Fish and Wildlife Resource 

Enhancement Act of 1993." 

SECfiON 2 

Section 2 sets out the findings of the Congress. 

SECfiON 3 

Section 3 provides that the purposes of the Act are to reaffirm and protect Indian 

hunting, fishing, and gathering rights, to provide for the conservation and management of 

Indian fish and wildlife resources, and to promote Indian self-determinat.ion by encouraging 

cooperative agreements between Federal, state, and local governments. 

SECfiON 4 

Section 4 sets out the definitions used in the Act. 

SECfiON S 

Subsection (a) provides that the Secretary shall provide for the management 

of Indian fish and wildlife resources to protect, conserve, and enhance Indian fish and 

wildlife resources, to protect Indian hunting and fishing treaty rights, to provide for 

the development and enhancement of the capacity of Indian tnbes to manage Indian 

fish and wildlife resources, and to manage Indian fish and wildlife resources consistent 

with integrated resource management plans. 

Subsection (b) provides that the Secretary shall establish the Indian fish and 

wildlife resource management program, in full consultation with Indian tribes. The 

Secretary shall provide assistance for the tribal management of Indian fish and 

wildlife resources through contracts and grants under the Indian Self-Determination 

Act. It also provides that the Secretary shall enter into a contract with an Indian 

tribe or tribal organization to administer any program within the Department of the 

Interior which affects Indian fish and wildlife resources. 

Subsection (c) provides that Indian fish and wildlife program activities may 

include the development and enforcement of tribal codes, the development and 

implementation of resource management plans, the development of tribal 
24 

conservation programs and participation in cooperative management of fish and 

wildlife resources on a regional basis. 

Subsection (d) authorizes the Secretary to provide financial and technical 

assistance to Indian tribes to review and revise existing tribal codes and ordinances 

regarding management of fish and wildlife resources, to determine and document the 

need for tribal conservation officers and other professionals to administer fish and 

wildlife resource management programs, and to determine and document the 

condition of Indian fish and wildlife resources. 

Subsection (e) provides that an Indian tribe may develop or implement an 

Indian fish and wildlife management plan, pursuant to the Indian Self-Determination 

Act, to meet the management objectives under the Act. It further provides that if 

an Indian tribe chooses not to develop a fish and wildlife management plan then the 

Secretary shall develop the plan in close consultation with the Indian tribe. A plan 

shall determine the conditions of fish and wildlife resources, identify tribal fish and 

wildlife management objectives, and define critical tribal values. Plans shall be 

completed within three years of the initiation of activity to establish the plan. Indian 

fish and wildlife management plans shall govern the management and administration 

of Indian fish and wildlife resources by the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian 

tribe. 

SECflON 6 

Section 6 provides that the Secretary shall fully consult with Indian tribes regarding 

any departmental action which affects Indian fish and wildlife resources consistent with the 

Federal trust responsibility. 

SECflON 7 

Subsection (a) provides for the establishment of the Indian Fish Hatchery 

Program within the Bureau of Indian Affairs to produce and distribute to Indian 

tribes a variety of species of fish and to assist in the development of tribal fish 

hatcheries. 

Subsection (b) requires the Secretary to transmit a report to the Congress a 

report to the Congress identifying the facilities which compromise the Indian Fish 

Hatchery Program, the maintenance and construction needs of the facilities, and a 

plan to administer these facilities. 

SECflON 8 

Subsection (a) authorizes the Secretary to enter into contracts with or make 

grants to Indian tribes to develop and maintain an Indian Bison Conservation 

2 
25 

Program to meet tribal subsistence, ceremonial, and resource needs. 

Subsection (b) provides that an Indian Bison Conservation Program shall 

provide for the preservation, restoration, care, and management of bison. 

Subsection (c) provides that funds may be used to develop and implement 

bison management plans, surveys, and inventories, to conduct research on populations 

and habitat, to undertake habitat restoration and to develop range ecology and 

conservation programs. 

SECTION 9 

Subsection (a) authorius the Secretary to establish in the Bureau of Indian 

Affairs at least 20 Indian fish and wildlife intern positions. It provides that the 

Secretary shall pay costs of tuition, books, fees, and living expenses of an intern. It 

further provides that an Indian fish and wildlife intern shall be required to enter into 

an obligated service agreement to serve as an employee of an Indian tribe, the 

Bureau of Indian Affairs or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for one year for each 

year that their educational costs are paid. 

Subsection (b) requires the Secretary to maintain a cooperative education 

program in the Bureau of Indian Affairs to recruit Indian students for employment 

in professional fisheries and wildlife biologists or other related professional positions 

within the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or an Indian 

tribe. 

Subsection (c) authorizes the Secretary to grant scholarships to Indians for 

postsecondary or graduate programs in the area of fish and wildlife resource 

management. Scholarship recipients shall be required to enter into an obligated 

service agreement to serve as an employee with an Indian tribe, the Bureau of Indian 

Affairs, or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for one year for each year the recipient 

received a scholarship. 

Subsection (d) authorizes the Secretary to conduct a fish and wildlife resource 

and education outreach program for Indian youth. 

Subsection (e) requires the Secretary to establish and maintain a postgraduate 

recruitment program to attract professional fish and wildlife biologists for 

employment by Indian tribes, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, or the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 

Subsection (f) requires the Secretary to administer these programs until there 

is an adequate supply of professionals to administer tribal fish and wildlife resource 

management programs on Indian lands. 

3 
26 

Subsection (g) provides that the Secretary shall adopt regulations to provide 

for an offer of employment to an individual who receives financial assistance in 

exchange for a service obligation under the Act. It further provides that where an 

offer of employment is not reasonably made, the regulations shall provide that such 

service is no longer required. 

Subsection (h) provides that where an individual fails to accept a reasonable 

offer of employment, unreasonably terminates, or fails to perform their duties, the 

Secretary shall require repayment of the prorated amount with interest calculated at 

the maximum legal prevailing rate, as determined by the Treasurer of the United 

States. 

SECTION 10 

Section 10 requires the Secretary to promulgate final regulations implementing this 

Act within 18 months of the date of enactment with the full and active participation of 

Indian tnbes. 

SECTION il 

Section 11 provides that if any prOVISion of the Act is held to be invalid, the 

remainder of the Act shall remain valid and not be affected thereby. 

SECTION 12 

Section 12 provides that nothing in the Act shall be construed to diminish or expand 

the trust responsibility of the Federal government for Indian fish and wildlife resources and 

that nothing in the Act shall be construed to abrogate, restrict, alter or diminish any treatyreserved right of any Indian tribe. 

SECTION 13 

Section 13 authorizes to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out 

the purposes of the Act. 

4 
27 

BACKGROUND FOR SEPTEMBER 8TH HEARING ON 

H.R. 2874, THE INDIAN FISH AND WILDUFE 

RESOURCE ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 1993 

HISTORY 

Indian fish and wildlife resources have been, and continue to 

be, an Integral part of tribal economic and social structure. In most 

treaties with the Federal government, Indian tribes reserved the right 

to fish, hunt and gather In their "usual and accustomed places". The 

right of Indian tribes to hunt, fish and gather have been the subject of 

several U.S. Supreme Court decisions. As a general rule, Indians 

enjoy the exclusive right to hunt and fish on their reservations. In 

United States vs. Winans, 198 U.S. 371 , 380-81 (1905) the Supreme 

Court considered the right of the Yakima Indian tribe to hunt and fish 

at their usual and accustomed places pursuant to an 1859 treaty. In 

deciding this case, the Supreme Court recognized the right of the 

Yakima Indian to use privately owned land In exercising their treaty 

fishing rights. 

Traditionally, the Courts have Interpreted Indian hunting, fishing 

and gathering rights very broadly. Tribal rights to hunt, fish and 

gather have been recognized by the courts to exist In ceded 

territories, aboriginal lands and on reservation areas. Similarly, 

courts have recognized the Importance of tribal hunting, fishing and 

gathering rights to tribal self-sufficiency. Economic Interests In tribal 

fishing rights as well as subsistence Interests were considered by the 

courts In several cases In the northwest. 

In United States v. Washington, 384 F. Supp. 312 (W.O. Wash. 

1974), the district court recognized the treaty fishing rights of the 

Tribes In Washington State and held that those fishing rights could 

not be limited by the States to certain species or type of fish, and 

these rights Include wild fish and hatchery bred fish. 

1 
28 

In recognizing the rights of tribal regulation of hunting and 

fishing rights, the Ninth Circuit held in Settler v. Lameer, 507 F.2d 231 

(9th Clr. 1974) that 

"[l]t would be unreasonable to conclude that In 

reserving these vital [fishing) rights, the Indians Intended 

to divest themselves of all control over the exercise of 

those rights. Prior to the Treaty the regulations for fishing 

had been established by the Tribe through Hs customs and 

tradition. The Indians must surely have understood that 

Tribal control would continue after the Treaty.• 

The Importance of fish and wildlife resources to Indian tribes 

have been and continue to be recognized by the courts. While the 

courts have recognized the Importance of these resources, the 

Bureau of Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior, has provided little 

support or assistance to tribal efforts to manage these resources. 

Efforts to Improve fish and wildlife habitat, Increase resident 

population of fish and wildlife, and undertake conservation measures 

have been left ent.lrely to Indian tribes. 

H.R. 2874. THE INDIAN FISH AND WILDUFE RESQURCE 

ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 1993 

H.R. 2874 recognizes the Federal governmenfs trust responsibility 

to protect and conserve Indian fish and wildlife resources. This bill 

provides for the Improvement of tribal capacities to manage Indian fish 

and wildlife resources through the development of Indian fish and 

wildlife management programs. It also provides for the Increased 

production of fish and wildlife resources to provide for the subsistence, 

economic, and employment needs of Indian tribes. The bill provides 

badly needed resources to Indian tribes to develop tribal codes, 

resource management plans, and fish and wildlife population 

Investigations. It provides funds to Indian tribes to Improve and restore 

fish and wildlife habitats and to develop tribal conservation programs. 

Finally, the bill will ensure that the management of Indian fish and 

wildlife resources Is consistent with tribal Integrated resource 

2 
29 

management plans. H.R. 2874 provides the statutory framework to 

ensure the proper exercise of the Federal government's trust 

responsibilities for the management of Indian fish and wildlife 

resources. 

HEARING 

Indian tribes are faced with a multiplicity of Issues surrounding the 

effective management and enhancement of Indian fish and wildlife 

resources. Fish and wildlife resources provide a significant resource 

base for subsistence, economic development and other cultural 

purposes for Indian trlbea and their members. Many Indian tribes have 

expressed concerns that existing federal laws do not adequately provide 

for the protection and management of tribal fish and wildlife resources 

and do not address the operations of tribal facilities. 

The Committee will receive testimony from wide range of Indian 

tribes from very distinct regions of the country. The tribal witnesses will 

provide testimony on their ongoing efforts to Improve fish and wildlife 

habitat, to cooperatively manage these resources with states and other 

Indian tribes, to Increase native fish and wildlife populations and to 

undertake conservation efforts on these lands. In addition, tribes will 

testify about the federal trust responsibilities to enhance Indian fish and 

wildlife resources. The Committee will receive comments and 

recommendations from the witnesses regarding H.R. 2874, the Indian 

Fish and Wildlife Resource Enhancement Act. 

3 

83-120 0 - 94 - 2 
30 

Mr. RICHARDSON. I would like to welcome our first witness Mr. 

Patrick Hayes, director, Office of Trust Responsibilities, BIA, and 

he will be accompanied by Mr. Gary Rankel. While Mr. Hayes and 

Mr. Rankel step up to the dais, let me just very briefly take a telephone call. · I will be right back. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Hayes, please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF PATRICK A. HAYES, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF 

TRUST RESPONSIBILITIES, BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ACCOMPANIED BY GARY 

RANKEL, CHIEF, BRANCH OF FISH, WILDLIFE AND RECREATION 

Mr. HAYEs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon. 

As the Chair has indicated, I do have a summary statement 

which accompanies the written statement, which I have submitted 

for the record. I am pleased to be here this afternoon to represent 

the views of the Department of the Interior on H.R. 2874, a bill to 

improve the management of Indian fish and wildlife resources on 

Indian lands, and for other purposes. 

I am accompanied today by Mr. Gary Rankel, who is the chief 

of our Branch of Fish, Wildlife and Recreation. I have asked Gary 

to accompany me so that we will be able to provide you with full, 

complete, and accurate information for any questions you may ask. 

Mr. Chairman, I am extremely gratified to appear before you and 

be able to take a position in strong support of this bill. We have 

had involvement as this legislation was being developed and have 

worked closely with the tribes and tribal organizations on this legislation. 

This legislation brings a recognition which has long been lacking 

to this critically important aspect of a tribe's existence. There are 

few things as important to tribes across Indian country as hunting, 

fishing, and gathering. 

Mr. Chairman, with the bill currently before us, we do have a 

few concerns which are detailed more fully in the list of recommendations which is attached to my submitted written statement. We believe that those areas which we have identified and 

the suggestions we have made will address those concerns and will 

strengthen and clarify the bill. 

Fish and wildlife is a critical thread in the fabric of everyday Indian life. Generations of Indian people have lived in harmony with 

a fishing and hunting existence. This harmony continues today 

with many, many Indian people relying on this activity for their 

sustenance, as well as strengthening their cultural identity. 

Also, in many circumstances, this activity supports a strong economic base for tribes and for individual Indians. 

Tribes administer hunting and fishing programs on well over 100 

reservations across the country. At least 23 States are aware of the 

management capabilities of tribes to operate these programs. These 

programs cover tens of millions of acres of prime wildlife habitat 

and lakes. 

There are thousands of miles of streams and rivers within Indian 

country over which tribes manage the resource. There are also 
31 

many instances where tribes and their members enjoy rights to offreservation hunting and fishing, and tribes participate in the management of that resource. 

Tribes for a large part are involved in the enforcement of managing the resource and do so through enforcement of tribally-enacted 

codes, ordinances and regulations. We are aware, however, that 

there are a large number of tribes that do not have these codes, 

ordinances and regulations, and who do not have the personnel to 

enforce or to manage the resource. 

Assistance is needed to help monitor and regulate public use, as 

well as tribal member use, of this hunting and fishing activity. 

Tribes are closely involved in all aspects of decision making 

about the fish and game resource in wild areas of treaty-ceded territory. They do so through a highly competent cadre of personnel 

assembled by the intertribal organizations and within the respective tribes themselves. 

They are the co-managers of a multi-jurisdictional fish and wildlife resource and in this regard share not only the decision making, 

but also the responsibility for those decisions. They have done an 

excellent job with the staff capacity, which has been stretched extremely thin. 

In regard to fishery facilities in Indian country, there are more 

than 100 facilities which tribes operate and maintain. They are involved in rearing, production, and aquaculture, and releases from 

these hatcheries benefit both Indian and non-Indian commercial 

and sport fisheries. 

These releases help to assure that subsistence and traditional 

ceremonial needs are met. They help to assure the existence of recreational opportunities for sports fishermen. Some hatcheries are 

used to address Endangered Species Act concerns. 

It needs to be pointed out that tribes are dependent upon Federal 

appropriations to support their hunting and fishing resource management programs. They are not eligible to receive direct funding and Federal aid from the Sport Fish and Wildlife Restoration and 

the Land and Water Conservation accounts. 

States, territories, and the District of Columbia receive direct 

funding from these accounts. Tribes, however, can only access these 

accounts via applications submitted to the respective State agencies, a process most tribes find objectionable. 

The primary source through which Federal appropriations are 

made available to tribes is the Bureau's Fish and Wildlife and 

Recreation Program. This program is funded at approximately $35 

million annually and provides funds for activities we call rights 

protection implementation activities. 

These support those tribal rights which have been adjudicated, 

such as in western Washington with the Boldt tribes or the Michigan fisheries settlement or in support of tribal rights in the U.S.-

Canada Pacific Salmon Treaty and so forth. 

Other activities include fish hatchery operations, fish hatchery 

maintenance, fish hatchery rehabilitation, and tribal management 

development programs. This latter program supports generally the 

tribe's specific applications, such as game code development, enforcement enhancement and so forth. 
32 

It also supports the Native American Fish and Wildlife Society 

and the Tribal Bison Herd Development Program. 

I probably should have mentioned a little earlier in discussing 

Federal appropriations, Mr. Chairman, that our fish and wildlife 

program is about 98 percent contracted. The program supports very 

few Bureau staff. Almost all of the dollars are going directly to 

tribes themselves to maintain their staffs and operations, and the 

program is running just fine. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to conclude by re-emphasizing the 

importance that tribes place on their hunting and fishing rights 

and resources. Tribes are critical players in the conservation, management, and development of fish and wildlife resources upon 

which the meaningful exercise of treaty hunting and fishing rights 

depend. 

Their lands and waters are prime, key habitat for the recovery 

of many listed endangered species and are essential for the conservation of major fish, big game, migratory birds, and other populations. 

We are of the opinion that this legislation will help ensure that 

Indian tribes are at the table when resource decisions are made. 

That concludes my summary statement, Mr. Chairman. We 

would be happy to answer any questions you may have. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Thank you, Mr. Hayes. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Hayes follows:] 
33 

STATEMENT OF PATRICK HAYES, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF TRUST 

RESPONSIBILITIES, BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF THE 

INTERIOR, BEFORE THE HOUSE NATURAL RESOURCES SUBCOMMITTEE 

ON NATIVE AMERICAN AFFAIRS, ON H.R. 2874, THE "INDIAN FISH AND 

WILDLIFE ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 1993". 

October 8, 1993 

Mr. Chainnan and Members of the Committee, I am here today to present the views 

of the Department of the Interior on H.R. 2874, a bill "To improve the management 

of Indian fish and wildlife resources on Indian lands, and for other purposes." 

We strongly support H.R. 2874. We commend the Committee in their efforts to 

improve Indian fish and wildlife management. Legislation to improve the 

management of Indian fish and wildlife resources, and authorizing appropriations to 

carry out its purposes is long overdue. However, we do have some concerns with 

the bill, as well as a general concern that the bill could create expectations for 

expanded service that cannot be presently fulfilled und:r current budget constraints. 

Attached to my statement is a list of recommendations which will address those 

concerns as well as strengthen and clarify the provisions in H.R. 2874. 

Generations of American Indians have developed life styles, cultures, religious 

beliefs and customs around their relationships with fish and wildlife. Historically, 

these resources provided food, shelter, clothing and tools, and were traded for a 

variety of goods. They continue to provide a base of sustenance, cultural 

enrichment and economic support for many tribes, and help maintain tribal social 

structure and stability by permitting gainful employment in traditional and desirable 

occupations. 
34 

2 

The scope of BIA and tribal fish and wildlife resource management authority, 

jurisdiction and responsibility varies on a case-by-case basis depending on land 

ownership and status, and language contained in a host of treaties, Executive 

Orders, court rulings, statutes, and other legal instruments. Indian reservations 

contribute significantly toward meeting the growing national demand for outdoor 

recreation and tourism, accounting for millions of public hunting and fishing days 

annually. A recent BIA report reveals that tribes administer more than 50 and 70 

public hunting and fishing programs, respectively, on I:adian reservations 

nationwide. These trust lands also provide habitat critical to the recovery of more 

than 40 species listed as threatened or endangered, including the bald eagle and 

grizzly bear, and are necessary for the conservation of other nationally significant 

fish, big game, migratory bird and other populations. 

Fish, wildlife and related outdoor recreation management activities are conducted 

on more than 125 reservations in 23 states, containin¥ approximately 1. 6 million 

acres of lakes and impoundments, more than 15,000 miles of perennial streams and 

rivers, and tens of millions of acres of prime wildlife habitat. In some cases, tribal 

fish and game codes, ordinances and regulations are in place, and reasonable 

numbers of enforcement and resource management personnel are available. 

Information compiled by the BIA reveals, however, that numerous reservations are 

in need of fish and game codes, ordinances and regulations. Many tribes also 

require resources to implement existing codes and ordinances, to monitor and 

regulate public use and tribal hunting and fishing activity, and to manage and 

conserve associated populations and habitats at levels comparable to those provided 

by Federal and state authorities. 

Reaffirmation of off-reservation Indian hunting and fishing rights, and the 
35 

3 

recognition of associated resource management roles and responsibilities, has 

accelerated the development of tribal management programs in treaty ceded territory 

in recent years. In this capacity, tribes, frequently working through intertribal fish 

and wildlife organizations, function as co-managers of multi-jurisdictional fish and 

wildlife resources, and work closely with other authorities in fulfilling shared roles 

and responsibilities. The functioning of intertribal fish and wildlife organizations, 

and the administration of programs required for the meaningful exercise of Indian 

hunting, fishing and gathering rights, entails additional tribal staffing and resources. 

Tribes operate and maintain more than 100 facilities, ranging from single-purpose 

structures to large state-of-the-art complexes, engaged in fish production, 

aquaculture .and/or rearing programs on more than 30 Indian reservations, primarily 

through P.L. 93-638 contracts with the BIA. Salmon and steelbead releases from 

tribal hatcheries in the Pacific Northwest benefit Indian and non-Indian commercial 

and sport fisheries in the United States and Canada: Returning spawners help 

satisfy subsistence and ceremonial needs, and are distributed to the elderly and 

poor. Throughout the rest of the country, recreational opportunities created by the 

stocking of catchable trout, walleye and other species attract sport fishermen, and 

promote the development of tribal economies. Some tribal hatcheries are used to 

help recover species listed under the Endangered Species Act. 

Fish and wildlife program staffs of tribes function in much the same manner as state 

departments of fish and game in carrying out resource management roles and 

responsibilities, including the enforcement of fish and game laws on reservations. 

However, unlike states, United States territories and the District of Columbia, 

Indian tribes are not eligible to receive direct funds from the Federal Aid in Sport 

Fish and Wildlife Restoration Accounts, and the Land and Water Conservation 
36 

4 

Account, do not generate tax revenues, and, with few exceptions, do not receive 

income through the sale of hunting and fishing permits capable of supporting 

resource management staffs and operations. Consequently, tribes are dependent on 

Federal appropriations to support resource management programs. 

The primary mechanism through which the Federal Government supports programs 

to fulfill tribal fish and wildlife resource management roles and responsibilities is 

the Fish, Wildlife and Recreation Program administered by the BIA, funded through 

the Wildlife and Parks budget at approximately $35 million annually. The goal of 

this program is to fulfill and execute the Federal Government's trust responsibilities 

relating to fish, wildlife and related resources, to protect Indian hunting and fishing 

rights, and to promote the conservation, orderly development and prudent use of 

fish and wildlife resources for the maximum benefit of Indians. 

More than 98 percent of wildlife and parks funds are _distributed through P .L. 93-

638 contracts, allowing tribes and inter-tribal fish and wildlife organizations to staff 

up and carry out programs that would otherwise be performed by the BIA, the Fish 

and Wildlife Service or other Federal agency. The program promotes the 

development of tribal capabilities, facilitates inter-tribal communications and 

dispute resolution, permits multi-tribal participation in addressing shared resource 

issues, and assists in achieving a variety of tribal objectives, including satisfying 

subsistence and ceremonial needs, creating jobs, generating revenue and realizing 

seif-sufficiency. Hundreds of tribal biologists, technicians, statisticians, 

hydrologists, conservation enforcement officers, and other professionals throughout 

the United States participate in the development and implementation of a variety of 

population, habitat and harvest management programs. 
37 

5 

This concludes my prepared statement. I would be happy to answer any questions 

the Committee may have. 
38 

6 

Attachment: October 8, 1993 Hearing on: 

H.R. 2874. the "Indian Fish and Wildlife Resource Enhancement Act of 1993." 

Section 2 

Finding (3), line 14, delete the term "responsibility" and insert in lieu thereof: "and 

rights protection responsibilities" . 

Tribes have hunting and fishing rights both on and off reservation lands. Trust 

responsibilities is too restrictive and does not adequately cover the hunting and 

fishing rights of the tribes off trust held lands. The additional language would 

clarify that the tribes have hunting and fishing rights both on and off the 

reservations. 

Finding (4), line 18, delete the word "resource". 

Finding (5), line 24, delete the word "tribal," and the"," after States. 

Finding (5), lines 1 and 2, delete "or court orders;" and insert in lieu thereof: "and 

other legal instruments;" 

Finding (6), lines 3 through 10 be amended to read as follows: 

"the United States has an obligation to support tribal efforts to 

monitor and regulate Indian and non-Indians hunting and fishing 

activities, to protect and conserve tribal fish and wildlife resources 

and habitats, and to maintain fish hatcheries and other facilities 

required for the prudent management, enhancement, and mitigation of 

fish and wildlife resources: and" 

Section 3 

Purpose (1), line 22 insert before "use" the word "wise". 

Purpose (3), lines 8 and 9, be amended to read as follows: 

"cooperative agreements with Federal, State, and local jurisdictions 

and to foster tribal participation" 

~ection 4 

Definition (2), be amended to read as follows: 
39 

"(2) The term "Indian fish hatchery" means any multi- or singlepurpose facility owned or operated by an Indian tribe or the Bureau, 

which is engaged in the spawning, hatching, rearing, holding. caring 

for or stocking of fish, including any related research and diagnostic 

fish health facility, and any other Federal fish hatchery facility 

located on an Indian res1rvation, the operation of which is contracted 

by an Indian tribe for Indian purposes. " 

Definition (6), line 20, insert "or tribal" after "Indian". 

7 

Definition (14), line 17, insert "including 'usual and accustomed' and 'in common 

with' areas" after "treaty ceded territory". 

Section 5 

Section 5(b)(3), lines 14-19: We recommend that language be inserted that would 

distinguish between ( 1) Interior programs which are intended to provide technical 

fish and wildlife assistance or serve the fish and wildlife resource needs of tribes, 

and should, therefore, be readily contractible, and (2) Interior programs which, 

while serving other purposes, may impact Indian fish and wildlife resources or 

Indian hunting and fishing rights, and, therefore, require review and consultation 

with tribes. 

We recommend that section 5(b)(3) be deleted in its entirety and the folloWing 

language be inserted in lieu thereof: 

"(3) The Secretary, upon the request of any Indian tribe or tribal fish 

and wildlife organizatioo, shall enter into a contract transferring 

resources and permitting such tribe or tribal organization to plan, 

conduct and administer any program, operation or facility within the 

Department of the Interior managed primarily to provide technical fish 

and wildlife assistance to tribes, or to otherwise serve the fish and 

wildlife resource needs of tribes, and which is currently administered 

by the Secretary." 

"(4) The Secretary, upon the request of any Indian tribe or tribal fish 

and wildlife organization, shall review any program, operation or 

facility administered witlin the Department of the Interior alleged to 

impact Indian fish and wildlife resources or the exercise of Indian 

hunting, fishing and gatltering rights, shall report his findings to the 

requesting tribe or tribal organization, and, shall take appropriate 
40 

actions to minimize associated impacts." 

Section 5(c)(6) be amended to read as follows: 

"participation in joint or cooperative management of shared fish and 

wildlife resources between tribes, on a regional basis with Federal, 

State, and local authorities, and in international settings." 

Section 5(d)(4), line 12, insert "species" before "identification". 

Section 5(e)(1)(B), line 5, delete "to" and insert "of a". 

Section 6 

8 

Section 6, line 8, insert "or the exercise of Indian hunting, fishing or gathering 

rights, or in any program or operation conducted on an Indian reservation," after 

~~resources, u . 

Section 7 

Section 7(a), line 18, insert a"," after "fish". 

Section 7(a), lines 19 and 20 amended to read as follows: 

"tribes to develop tribal hatcheries, and to enhance tribal fisheries 

resources on Indian reservations, and in treaty ceded territories." 

Section 7(b), Line 25, insert "identifying" after "Program,". 

Section 8 

Section 8(c)(3)-(4), lines 21-23 amended to read as follows: 

"(3) develop suitable pasture; and 

(4) develop adequate containment and watering facilities, food 

supplies, and health maintenance programs required for herd 

maintenance success." 

Section 9 

Section 9(a)(3), lines 22 and 23, amended to read as follows: 
41 

"or with the Bureau of Indian Affairs, or with the United States Fish 

and Wildlife Service in a program serving or benefiting" 

9 

Section 9(b )(2), lines 22-25, delete "and who is interested. .. or benefiting Indian 

lands." and insert in lieu thereof: ''pursuant to paragraph (1)." 

Section 9(c)(2), lines 19-21, amended to read as follows: 

"Bureau, or with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service in a 

program serving or benefiting Indian lands for one year for each year 

the recipient received a scholarship." 

Section 9(e), line 15, amended to read as follows: 

"or with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service in a program 

serving or benefiting Indian lands, in exchange" 

Section 9(f), line 21, insert "Indian" after "of'. 

Section 9(g), line 23, delete the "." and insert in lieu thereof: " , and in treaty ceded 

territories." 
42 

Mr. RICHARDSON. How would you provide access to a Land and 

Water Conservation account to Indian tribes? Could this be accomplished administratively or through regulations? 

Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, we think not. We think that probably 

the most appropriate mechanism to allow tribes access to that account plus the other accounts which I mentioned in my testimony 

would be primarily through legislation. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Now, so then you would favor legislation that 

would provide tribal access to this accou11.t? 

Mr. HAYES. The Bureau of Indian Affairs probably would favor 

that, yes, sir. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. The Bureau would wpport that. Now, it sometimes seems, based on some of these legal conflicts, the Voigt decision, the Boldt decision, that the tribe has to win a case in Federal 

court before the BIA provides any kind of enforcement or any kind 

of management funds for hunting and fishing. 

Do you think that is an accurate statement? 

Mr. HAYES. The cases you reference, Mr. Chairman, are cases 

which have addressed primarily off-reservation rights. 

The Bureau of Indian Affairs, through our fish and wildlife program, supports on-reservation activities as well, not necessarily 

only at the instigation or at the direction of a court decision. 

The tribal management and development program which I reference very briefly in my testimony is testament to that fact. There 

are a number of tribes which receive fiscal assistance, and it is not 

at the direction of a court order. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Now, how many programs in other bureaus 

within the Department of Interior have been contracted under the 

P.L. 93-638 arrangements? 

Mr. HAYES. I am not aware of a specific number, Mr. Chairman. 

I would be happy to survey some of the other agencies within Interior and provide that information for the record, if that is what you 

would like. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Yes, please do, because that is an essential 

part of the data we are trying to correct. 

[EDITOR's NOTE.-This information was not received at the time 

of printing.] 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Now, what is the view of the Department regarding tribes contracting for the functions of the Fish and Wildlife 

Service or the BLM under these Indian self-determination acts? 

Mr. HAYES. The Bureau of Indian Affairs is very, very supportive 

of tribes contracting these programs, and we have been involved in 

that for a number of years now. 

With the passage of the amendments to P .L. 93-638, other bureaus within the Department of the Interior have been involved in 

assisting to develop the regulations for implementation. I am sure 

that, while I can't speak positively, I would assume and could probably say that the Secretary is very supportive of other bureaus participating in 638, but I think the embrace from those other bureaus 

to the 638 self-determination contracting concept varies within the 

Department. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Now, some of the testimony that we have received on this issue indicates that for amounts available under 

wildlife and parks, as little as 2 percent is available for manage-
43 

ment of big game and bird populations. If you compute this, it is 

about 2 cents per acre. 

Does this seem to be an accurate figure, and how does this compare to the amounts expended for management on other Federal 

lands? 

Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, if you don't have any objection, I 

would like to ask Mr. Rankel to respond to that. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. That is fine. 

Mr. HAYES. He works a little more closely with this issue. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Go ahead, Mr. Rankel. 

Mr. RANKEL. Thank you. I am not sure if the 2 percent figure is 

accurate or not, but I would certainly think it is at least less than 

5 percent. It could be 2 or 3 percent. 

I think the answer to why it is so low basically relates to the way 

the Bureau's wildlife and parks budget has evolved. 

As I think you indicated earlier, it has been very much in response to court cases. I would think 70, 75 percent of our budget 

is probably related to the settlement of some of these court cases 

and basically all of those have involved fish, the Pacific salmon, 

and the Great Lakes fishery issues. 

In regard to the on-reservation programs, most of the tribes have 

gone into and most of the money has gone into, fish hatcheries and 

public fishing programs, et cetera, et cetera. There is only a relatively small number of tribes, primarily in the Southwest, that are 

actively engaged in big game hunting programs, so that explains 

the percentage. 

I am not familiar with how they compare to other Federal agencies. We have not done that kind of analysis. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Okay, but let's say those figures are accurate 

and it is 2 percent. Two percent, 2 cents per acre. 

How would this compare with other arrangements with Federal 

lands? Would you have any idea? 

Mr. RANKEL. No, I don't. I don't know what the Fish and Wildlife 

Service would be paying per acre for the refuges or the Park Service for parks. 

I am not familiar with any kind of surveys that have been done 

to generate that. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Okay. How much funding would be required to 

bring Indian lands up to a comparable level of funding in your 

judgment, or Mr. Hayes? 

Mr. HAYES. Could I refer that one also to Mr. Rankel? 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Okay. 

Mr. RANKEL. Again, that would be a difficult answer to come up 

with. We have never really done a survey asking the 150 or 180 

tribes that have the potential for fish and wildlife programs what 

their needs would be to bring everybody up to standard, both onreservation and in the off-reservation areas. 

I can cite that on an annual basis when the tribes come back 

here and testify, and we have to prepare capability statements for 

their testimony, we are dealing with $60 million to $80 million of 

requests for add-ons. Those are just the requests of the tribes who 

are able to make it back here and express their needs; certainly the 

overall need would be greater than that. 
44 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Hayes, how does the Bureau feel about 

being deemed a co-manager of the fish and wildlife resources? Is 

this a new concept or has this been in place and we are simply 

codifying it? 

Does co-management require any legal responsibilities, legal 

meaning in your view, and finally, does it at all change the trust 

relationship in your judgment? 

Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I would say that the codification of 

a co-management responsibility is probably more appropriate for 

the codification to be directed toward Indian tribes. 

Ai3 the committee is aware, co-management is not necessarily a 

new idea. It has been around for a number of years now, essentially started with the Boldt decision where Judge Boldt indicated 

that the tribes should be co-managers of the resource. 

And the focus has thus far been on identifying the tribes as the 

co-managers of the resource as opposed to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and we are supportive of that. In regard to the trust responsibility question, I would say that 

the trust responsibility is not broadened or lessened by virtue of 

the legislation that is before us. The trust responsibility currently 

exists. 

The Bureau of Indian Affairs, on behalf of the Federal Government, recognizes that, and we take our actions relative to that 

trust responsibility accordingly. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Now, it has come to the committee's attention 

that a number of States are challenging the authority of tribal officers to enforce tribal conservation laws. 

It has always been this committee's position that Indian tribes 

have that inherent authority to establish tribal law enforcement 

programs and, at the same time, hire and train tribal law enforcement officers. 

We have addressed this in the Indian Law Enforcement Reform 

Act, in the context of legislation where we affirmed and acknowledged these inherent rights. Has the BIA taken any position on 

this? What are your views on this matter? 

Mr. HAYES. We have, Mr. Chairman. The Office of Trust Responsibilities has initiated a task force, a working group, if you will, between our offices that are program offices and the office of law enforcement, to talk about fish and wildlife game enforcement as opposed to criminaltype enforcement. 

We are working to develop a training package. We are working 

to develop a division of responsibilities and authorities in that regard, in cooperation with one another. We are supportive of the comment you made earlier in your question about the authority of Indian tribes to enforce fish and game 

codes on their reservations. We believe that to be a true fact, and 

as a result of our working group with law enforcement, we have 

asked our solicitor for their views on the scope and effect of the Act 

which you mentioned, as to our authorities. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Okay, Mr. Hayes. Once again, thank you for 

your testimony. It is nice to see you again. It is nice that you are 

supporting the bill so enthusiastically. 

Mr. HAYES. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 
45 

PANEL CONSISTING OF DELVIS HEATH, CHIEF, WARM 

SPRINGS TRIBE, AND MEMBER, TRIBAL COUNCIL OF CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF WARM SPRINGS, ACCOMPANIED BY 

HON. NELSON WALLULATUM, CIDEF, WASCO TRIDE, AND 

MEMBER, TRIBAL COUNCIL OF CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF 

WARM SPRINGS, OR, AND HOWARD G. ARNETT, TRIBAL ATTORNEY; HARRISON TALGO, SR., CHAIRMAN, SAN CARLOS 

APACHE TRIBE, ARIZONA; JULIA DAVIS, VICE CHAIRPERSON, 

NEZ PERCE TRIBAL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, LAPWAI, ID; 

GEORGE DUPUIS, VICE CHAIRMAN, FOND DU LAC BAND OF 

LAKE SUPERIOR CHIPPEWA, CLOQUET, MN; BILL FRANK, 

JR., CHAIRMAN, NORTHWEST INDIAN FISHERIES COMMISSION, OLYMPIA, WA; DON WEDLL, COMMISSIONER OF NATURAL RESOURCES, MILLE LACS BAND OF OJIBWE INDIANS, 

ONAMIA, MN; AND MARK HECKERT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

INTERTRIBAL BISON COOPERATIVE, RAPID CITY, SD 

Mr. RICHARDSON. We will now move on to panels two and three. 

We are going to combine these panels because I have been informed by the staff that several members of the third panel have 

5 o'clock planes to catch, and I want to respect that and make sure 

they make their flights. So I would like to step up to the witness 

table to have Del vis Heath, Chief of Warm Springs Tribe, and tribal council member for the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs; 

Mr. Howard G. Arnett, tribal attorney; Hon. Harrison Talgo, chairman, San Carlos Apache Tribe; the Hon. Julia Davis, vice chairperson of the Nez Perce Tribal Executive Committee in Lapwai, 

Idaho, Honorable George Dupuis, vice chairman, Fond du Lac Band 

of Lake Superior Chippewas, Cloquet, Minnesota; Mr. Billy Frank, 

chairman, Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, Olympia, 

Washington; Mr. Don Wedll, commissioner of natural resources, 

Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe Indians, Onamia, Minnesota; and Mr. 

Mark Heckert, executive director, InterTribal Bison Cooperative, 

Rapid City, South Dakota. 

I do want to get into the questions and I do want to make sure 

you all catch your flights. So with that, I would like to have the 

Hon. Delvis Heath, please start. Mr. Heath. 

STATEMENT OF DELVIS HEATH 

Mr. HEATH. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. 

My name is Delvis Heath. I am the Chief of the Warm Springs 

Tribe and Nelson Wallulatum is also accompanying me. He is Chief 

of the Wasco Tribe, and also a lifetime member of the Warm 

Springs Tribal Council. 

We are here today to testify on behalf of the Warm Springs Tribal Council in support of H.R. 287 4, the Indian Fish and Wildlife 

Resources Enhancement Act of 1993. 

With your permission, Chairman, and in the interest of time, a 

lot of the things that you said before are of interest to the Warm 

Springs Tribal Council. We have some issues, but instead of reading the whole statement that I am supposed to read, I would like 

to submit the written statement and summarize our statement so 

everyone can get a chance to speak. 
46 

Thank you. Mr. RICHARDSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, that is 

very generous of you and we welcome you to this subcommittee. [Prepared statement of the tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation follows:] 
47 

TESTIMONY OF THE CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE 

WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON 

CONCERNING B.R. 2874, THE INDIAN FISH AND 

WILDLIFE RESOURCE HANAc&MENT ACT OF 1993 

United States House of Representatives 

Natural Resources Committee 

Subcommi ttee on Native American Affairs 

Washington, D.C. 

October 8, 1993 

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and membe r s of the Committee. My 

name is Nelson Wallulatum and I am Chief of the Wasco Tribe and a 

lifetime member of the Tribal Council of the Confederated Tribes of 

the Warm Springs Reservation of oregon , With me i s Delvis Heath, 

Chief of the Warm Springs Tribe and also a lifetime member of the 

Warm Springs Tribal Council. We are here today to testify on 

behalf of the Warm Springs Tribal Council in support of H.R. 2874, 

the Indian Fish and Wildlife Resource Management Act of 1993. With 

your permission, Mr . Chairman, we are submitting a written statement for the record, which I will briefly s ummarize at this time. 

The Warm Springs Tribal Council believes that the H.R . 2874 

provides an excellent framework for carrying out the federal 

government's trust responsibility to protect and preserve Indian 

- 1 -
48 

fish and wildlife resources. We are very pleased to see that 

H.R . 2874 addresses many of our comments concerning national Indian 

fish and wildlife legislation presented in our testimony before 

this subcommittee on February 18 , 1993. At that time, we expressed 

our belief that the legislation should be the centerpiece 0f the 

federal government's trust responsibility in the area of Indian 

fish and wildlife resources. In our view, H.R. 2874 provides that 

c enterpiece by offering a flexib l e foundation for defining the 

trust responsibility and the government-to-government relationship 

in this area. 

With respect to the "Findings" section of H.R. 2874, we are very 

pleased to see that the legislation contai~s a clear statement that 

the trust responsibility extends to all federal agencies and 

departments, and that, absent a clear expression of congressional 

intent to the contrary, federal fish and wildlife conservation laws 

must be administered in a manner consistent with Indian treaty 

rights. These findings are a statement of well-established 

judicial rules in this area, and their restatement is an important 

part of this legislation. This is also true of the finding 

concerning the role of the trust responsibility in interpreting 

federal statutes and regulations effecting Indian fish and wildlife 

resources and tribal resource ma nagement activi ties. Again, this 

is simply a s tatement of e s tablished case law. 

- 2 -
49 

Concerning the Section 4 "Definitions," we are generally pleased 

with these definitions and, in particular, support the definition 

of "resource management activities," which separates forest land 

management activities from fish and wildlife management activities. 

This distinction is important because it keeps H.R. 2874 from 

inadvertently overlapping with the National Indian Forest Resources 

Management Act (P.L. 101-630). H.R. 2874 is very much in the 

spirit of the Indian forestry act, as well as the proposed American 

Indian Agricultural Act (H.R. 1425), and it is important that 

congressional legislation defining the government's trust 

responsibility in these distinct areas of Indian resource 

management do not conflict with one another. 

With respect to the Section 5 "Indian Fish and Wildlife Resource 

Management Program," we approve of the way that individual tribes 

are provided the option to contract with the Secretary of Interior 

through the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs to develop the 

Indian Fish and Wildlife Resource Management Program and Plan 

called for in the Act. We are especially pleased to see that H.R. 

2874 provides for improved tribal enforcement of tribal and other 

laws governing the use and management of these resources. Earlier 

Senate drafts of this legislation proposed a federal police force 

that would enforce federal conservation laws on Indian lands. In 

our testimony before the Senate Select Committee on June 15, 1993, 

we objected to the imposition of a new federal law enforce-ment 

agency into our reservation and urged, 

- 3 -

instead, that the 
50 

legislation provide the opportunity for tribes to contract with the 

Secretary of Interior to improve their own enforcement capability 

with respect to tribal conservation laws and regulations. Happily, 

that is precisely what H.R. 2874 does. 

One of our few criticisms of H.R. 2874 c oncerns t he Section 7 

"Indian Fish Hat c h ery Program." We are inte rested in this sec tion 

because the U.s. Fis h a nd Wildlife Service opera tes the Warm 

Springs Na tional Fis h Hatche ry on our r eservation. The l a nguage of 

this section is unclear as to whether the Tribe h as the option of 

having the Fish and Wildlife Service turn over the hatchery to the 

Bureau of Indian Affa irs . I n our view, the decision to transfer an 

Indian fish hatchery operated by the U. S. Fis h and Wildlife Service 

t o the Bureau of Indian Affairs should be a tribal government 

decision, or a federal decisi o n subject to t riba l approval. We 

hope that section 7 will be cha nged to clearly expr ess this tribal 

authority. 

With respec t to the Section 9 educational programs, we strongly 

support this asp ect of t h e legis l ati o n. Warm S prings i s 

re servation rich in fish and wildlife resources. Moreover, because 

of our treaty-secured off-reservatio n fishing, hunting and other 

food gathering rights many of our young people are n a turally 

inclined toward careers in fish and wildlife management . We think 

that t he intern, cooperative education and schol arship programs set 

out in Section 9 will provide a much needed boost to those of our 

- 4 -
51 

young people who are considering a professional career in fish and 

wildlife management. 

In addition, we have the following drafting and other specific 

comments concerning H.R. 2874: 

Page 5, lines 8, 12, and 14: The words "an Indian" should be 

inserted in front of "fish hatchery" to comport with the definition 

of an "Indian fish hatchery" on page 4, line 25. 

Page 6, line 7: The definition of "Indian land" only applies to 

trust and restricted lands, and not fee land inside the 

reservation . However, the term "Indian land" on ly appears on page 

2, line 16, and in the education provisions on page 15, lines 23 -

24, and .page 16, line 25 . 

Page 7, line 17: The definition of "treaty ceded territory" should 

indicate that treaty-reserved hunting, fishing and gathering rights 

are not necessarily restricted to a tribe's ceded territory. For 

example , with r espect to off-reservation treaty fishing rights in 

the Pacific Northwest, these rights extend to "all usual and 

accustomed" fishing places, even if those places are located 

outside of a tribe's treaty ceded territory. 

Paq·e 8, line 9; The l anguage of this section appears to limit 

Se1:retarial protection, as well as conservation and enhancement 

- 5 -
52 

activities, to fish and wildlife resources deemed "important" to 

tribes. Was that the intent? Could such a limitation be 

interpreted as a restriction of the trust? Who is responsible for 

determining which resources are "importanttt and which are not? 

Page 10, line 19 through page 11, line 16: This section contains 

a specific listing of the purposes for which the Secretary is 

authorized to provide technical assistance money to tribes fo r fish 

and wildlife management. Technical assista nce projects which do 

not fall within this listing would not be eligible for funding. 

Perhaps the language s hould be expa nded to encompass a broader 

range of projects. 

Page 11, line 19: This language refers to "an Indian fish and 

wildlife resource management pla n" in the singular, as if it is to 

be a single, per haps nationa l plan. However, as depicted in the 

remainder of the subsection and noted on page 13, line 1, where 

" f i sh and wildlife management plans" (plura l) are mentioned, 

separate management plans a r e to be deve loped for various tribes. 

This should be clarified. 

Page 12, line 5 : " implementation to plan" is grammatically 

incorrect and should r ead "implementation of a plan," and perhaps 

adding 11 for that tribe." 

- 6 -
53 

Page 13, line 2: Management plans are to be "approved," but the 

bill does not say by whom or under what circumstances. Presumably, 

the intention is that the Secretary is to approve these plans. 

This should be clarified. 

Pa.ge 13, line 18: A comma should be inserted between "fish" and 

"t.o." 

Page 15, lines 23-24: The purpose of the education program is to 

g~et more Indian professionals serving the fish and wildlife needs 

o.: tribes. That is why the obligated service for internship 

necipients is limited to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service activities 

"serving or benefiting Indian lands. 11 Yet, the cooperative 

education program on page 17, line 6, and the scholarship program 

on page 17, line i9, fail to require Indian-related service when 

doing obligated service with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under 

t:1ese programs. This is contrary to the purpose of the education 

section of the bill. Similarly, in postgraduate recruitment on 

page 18, line 15, Indian-related service is not required when an 

Indian is recruited into the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 

exchange for payment of scholastic expenses. 

Page 18, line 12: The postgraduate recruitment effort should be 

directed to Indian professionals in all fish and wildlife related 

fields, and not just biologists, as the provision now reads. 

- 7 -
In summary, we support H.R. 2874 as an excellent statutory framework for definition and implementatio n of the federal government's 

trust responsibility to Indian tribes in the area of fish and 

wildlife resource management. The legislation is flexible enough 

to accommodate individual tribal choices with respect to how 

certain aspects of the trust responsibility should be carried out, 

as well as permitting further definition of the trust respons ibility and additional programs through future statutory enactments. Accordingly, we commend the Committee and its staff for 

their work in developing this legislation, as well as their careful 

and thoughtful consultation with the Wa rm Springs tribal government 

in the development of this bill. We urge the Committee to approve 

this legislation, with the suggestions we have made, and pass it on 

to the full House for action. 

Thank you. 

- 8 -
55 

Mr. RICHARDSON. We will now hear from the Hon. Harrison 

Talgo. 

Mr. Chairman, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF HARRISON TALGO, SR. 

Mr. TALGO. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, my name is Harrison 

Talgo, Sr. I am the Chairman of San Carlos Apache Tribe of Arizona. I have submitted a statement for the hearing record which 

I will summarize now. 

H.R. 2874 focuses attention on one of the most neglected subjects 

of Federal trust management of Indian lands and their resources. I thank you for sponsoring the measure. 

Your interest in these matters and longstanding commitment to 

a better day for Indian tribes in New Mexico and the Nation are 

deeply appreciated. I welcome this opportunity to testify in strong 

support of H.R. 2874 and to suggest certain changes. The San Carlos Apache Reservation consists of more than 1.8 

million acres of land in eastern Arizona. We invite you to visit our 

homeland. We will show you one of the most diverse biological communities in the United States. 

Enactment of H.R. 2874 will enable us to greatly improve the 

management of our fish and wildlife resources since it is based on 

the conviction that the only sure path to enhancing fish and wildlife management on Indian lands is through the Indian people 

themselves, who are the first trust stewards of these lands. 

Section 5(a) of H.R. 287 4 directs the Secretary of the Interior to 

conduct the Department's management of Indian fish and wildlife 

resources in accordance with five objectives. These objectives are 

consistent with the San Carlos Apache Tribe's own management 

objectives. 

However, we recommend that a sixth objective be added to section 5(a). That objective should be to manage Indian fish and wildlife resources in accordance with standards at least as high as those of 

other Federal land management agencies and to provide the 

human and financial resources necessary to attain those standards. 

Past funding for wildlife management activities is too low to 

meet reasonable standards. The Bureau of Indian Affairs funding 

for fiscal year 1993 provides $28 million for wildlife and parks. Of 

the Interior $28 million, less than 2 percent is available for management of big game and bird population of approximately 51 million acres of trust land. This works out to less than 2 cents per 

acre. 

It is our understanding that other land management agencies of 

the Federal Government with comparable land and wildlife resources spent as much as 10 times more money on wildlife management per acre than the BIA makes available for management on 

San Carlos Apache Reservation. 

We recommend that section 5(b) be amended by adding a new 

paragraph to require the Secretary to transmit a needs report to 

Congress detailing the financial and personnel resources necessary 

to achieve the objectives specified in section 5(a ). 

Section 5(e) requires that an Indian fish and wildlife management plan be developed and implemented to meet the objectives of 
56 

section 5(a ). It provides that if a tribe elects not to develop its own 

plan, then the Secretary, in close consultation with the affected 

tribe, must develop and implement a management plan. 

Here in section 5(e) we recommend that the Secretary's discretion be tempered with statutory language requiring that any management plan developed by the Secretary must be consistent with 

tribal objectives and afford a tribe the right and opportunity to 

challenge the Secretary's plan. We are concerned that pressures from within and without the Interior Department could result in Secretarial plans that may not be 

in the best interest of Indian tribes. In this regard, we are also concerned that the language in this section regarding public meetings 

could have the unintended result of vast Indian parties that are 

neither tribal nor Federal having a statutory interest in conduct of 

on-reservation fish and wildlife activities. 

Section 7 deals with the needs of tribal hatchery facilities. It is 

our understanding that it is intended to cover only existing tribal 

facilities. My tribe and others in the Southwest hope to obtain 

funds to construct new facilities. We suggest that this section be 

amended to cover new facilities. As the former director of the San Carlos Apache Head Start program, I especially welcome the provisions of section 9 relating to 

education in fish and wildlife resource management. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I appreciate the opportunity, and I thank you. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Talgo follows:] 
Harrison Talgo. Sr. 

Tribal Chairman 

57 

THE SAN CARLOS APACHE TRIBE San Carlos Avenue 

P.O. BoxO 

San Carlos. Arizona 85550 

(602) 475-2361 

Fax (602) 475·2567 

Raymond Stanley 

Tribal Vice Chairman 

STATEMENT OF HARRISON TALGO SR, CHAIRMAN, SAN CARLOS APACHE 

TRIBE, REGARDING H.R. 2874, THE INDIAN FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCE 

ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 1993, BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIVE 

AMERICAN AFFAIRS, COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES. 

OCTOBER 5, 1993 

Hr. Chairman, my name is Harrison Talgo, Sr. I am Chairman of the 

San Carlos Apache Tribe of Arizona. H. R. 2874, the Indian Fish 

and Wildlife Resource Enhancement Act of 1993, focuses attention 

on one of the most neglected subjects of Federal trust management 

of Indian l~riOs and their resources. I thank you for sponsoring 

the measure. Your interest in these matters and long-standing 

commitment to a better day for Indian tribes in New Mexico and 

the Nation are deeply appreciated. 

On February 18 of this year, I appeared before this 

subcommittee to comment on problems encountered by the San Carlos 

Apache Tribe in its efforts to manage its wildlife populations 

for the protection of endangered and threatened species, for 

subsistence hunting by members of the Tribe, and for sports 

hunting by visitors to our Reservation. I welcome this 

opportunity to testify in general support of H.R. 2874 and to 

propose certain changes. 

The San Carlos Apache Reservation consists of 1,800,000 

acres of land in eastern Arizona. Our' land varies in elevation 

from 1,900 to 8,300 feet above mean sea level. This corresponds 

with plant communities varying from the lower Sonoran desert to 

mixed conifer forest . We invite you to visit our homeland. We 

will show you one of the most diverse biological communities in 

the United States. About 75 species of mammals and 250 species of 

birds are found, including ten big game species, eight small game 

species (not including waterfowl), and dozens of neo-tropical 

bird species. Of special importance, our Reservation is the home 

of six species which are listed, or are candidates for listing, 

as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act. 

These species are: the bald eagle; peregrine falcon; Mexican 
58 

spotted owl northern goshawk, Mohave desert tortoise, and the 

Gila topminnow. 

Enactment of H.R. 2874 will enable us to greatly improve the 

management of our fish and wildlife resources. 

Section 5(a) of H.R. 2874 directs the Secretary of the 

Interior to conduct the Department's management of Indian fish 

and wildlife resources in accordance with five exemplary 

objectives. These objectives are comprehensive in scope and 

a c knowledge the cultural, traditional, and economic values, 

including subsistence, of the fish and wildlife resources on 

Indian lands ann waters. They are consistent with the San Carlos 

Apache Tribe's own management objectives as developed by the 

Tribal Council and the Tribe's own Recreation and Wildlife 

Department. 

The bill's objectives also recognize the Federal trust 

obligations to Indian tribes with respect to hunting, fishing, 

and gathering rights guaranteed by the United States through 

treaties, statutes, and court orders. The objectives include the 

development or enhancement of the tribes' own capacities to mange 

Indian fish and wildlife res~urces, consistent with the Federal 

and tribal policy of Indian self-determination and the 

government-to-government relationship between the tribes and the 

United States. And the objectives acknowledge the importance of 

integrated resource management in order to protect and maintain 

other values such as Indian forestry and agricultural values. 

The San Carlos Apache Tribe recommends that a sixth 

o bjective be added to section 5(a). That objective should be--

TII··IIlanage Indian fish and wildlife resources in 

accordance with standards at least as high as those of 

other Federal land management agencies and to provide 

the human and financial resources necessary to attain 

those standards. 

We would expect that other provisions of the legislation would 

result in an assessment of reserv ation needs and the development 

and implementation of plans to meet this sixth objeetive. 

Past funding for wildlife management activities has been 

nowhere near adequate to meet reasonable standards. The Bureau of 

Indian Affairs funding for FY 1993 provides $28 million for 

Wildlife and Parks. Of this amount approximately two-thirds is 

dedicated for use off-reservation in connection with treaty 

fishing-rights obligations, chiefly ih the Northwest and Great 

Lakes regions. Of the remaining $9.5 million, $2.5 million is for 

tribal hatchery O&H, leaving $7.0 million for Tr.ibal Management/ 

Development Programs (TMDP). TMDP funds are available, under 638 

contracts, to enable tribes to: develop codes, ordinances, and 

r e gulations for conserving fish and wildlife resources on 

millions of acres of trust land; develop the multi-disciplinary 

competence and professional expertise of tribes and intertribal 

fish and wildlife organizations; create job- and income-producing 

programs; and manage public use and tourism. Of the entire $28 

million, less than 2% is available for management of big-game and 

bird populations on approximately 51 million acres of trust land. 

This works out to less than 2 cents per acre. The way the BIA 

structures its budget obscures the fact that very little of its 
59 

wildlife and parks funding goes to on-reservation wildlife 

mana:~ement. We suggest that the Subcommittee consult with the BIA 

to arrive at a budget structure that more clearly displays how 

its funds are deployed to meet its several important onreservation missions and to the extent feasible distinguish 

funding for fish, on the one hand, and all other species, on the 

other. 

The San Carlos Apache Tribe receives $65,000 of TMDP funds 

for wildlife management on its 1.8 million-acre Reservation (the 

fourth largest in the nation) or about 3 1/2 cents per acre. The 

Tribe also has allocated approximately $55,000 of other BIA funds 

to wildlife management at the cost of reduced funding for 

programs under the BIA's tribal priority system for allocation of 

appropriated funds. As a measure of the Tribe's concern for its 

wildlife resources, it contributes about $696,000 of its Tribal 

funds, although it is one of the most impoverished tribes in the 

nation. The Tribe's wildlife funding needs and management 

structure are described in the statement of the San Carlos Apache 

Recreation and Wildlife· Department which I furnished to the 

Subcommittee at its February 18 hearing and submit again for the 

files of this hearing. 

It is our understanding that other land management agencies 

of the Federal government with comparable land and wildlife 

resources spend as much as 10 times more money on wildlife 

management per acre than the BIA makes available for management 

on the San Carlos Apache Reservation. We suggest that the 

Subcommittee ask the Department of the Interior and Forest 

Service to provide figures on comparative levels of funding. 

We believe the primary source of Federal funds for tribal 

wildlife management should be the same source that provides funds 

for other Federal land management agencies--appropriated funds 

fron1 the Treasury. 

Section 5(b) of H.R. 2874 directs the Secretary to establish 

the Indian Fish and Wildlife Resources Management Program in 

ordE,r to achieve these objectives. We recommend that section 5(b) 

be .,mended by adding a new paragraph to require the Secretary to 

transmit a Needs Report to Congress detailing the financial and 

personnel resources necessary to achieve the objectives specified 

in section 5(a), as amended to include the standards provision we 

suggest above. 

Section 5 (c) outlines, for illus'trative purposes, some of 

the management activities which may be carried out under this 

pro1:ram. We are pleased to see included as one of these 

activities "participation in joint or cooperative management [of] 

fish and wildlife resources on a regional basis with Federal, 

State, Tribal, and local authorities." Our Reservation is 

adjacent to vast areas of land under the jurisdiction of 

of the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management. 

Section 5(d) authorizes the Secretary to provide financial 

and technical assistance to enable Indian tribes to: revise 

tribal codes, ordinances, and regulations governing tribal fish 

and wildlife resource protection and use; assess the need for 

tribal professional personnel to administer Indian fish and 

wildlife resource management programs; provide training to these 
60 

personnel; and determine the condition of Indian fish and 

wildlife resources. 

Section 5(e) requires that an Indian fish and wildlife 

management plan be developed and implemented to meet the 

objective of section 5(a). A tribe may develop its own plan, 

pursuant to a self-determination contract or self-governance 

compact. If a Tribe elects not to, then the Secretary, in close 

consultation with the affected Tribe, must develop and implement 

a management plan. 

Here, in section 5(e), we recommend that the Secretary's 

discretion be tempered with statutory language that requires that 

any management plan developed by the Secretary must be consistent 

with tribal objectives and afford a tribe the right and 

meaningful opportunity to challenge the Secretary's plan when, in 

the judgement of the affected tribe, the plan is not consistent 

with tribal values and goals. We are concerned that pressures 

from within and without the Interior Department could result in 

Secretarial plans that may not be in the best interests of Indian 

tribes, might impair their sovereignty, and could weaken the 

Federal trust responsibility. 

In this regard, we are also concerned that the language 

regarding public meetings in section 5(e)(v) and 5(e)(vi) could 

have the unintended result of vesting in parties that are neither 

tribal nor Federal a statutory interest in the conduct of onreservation fish and wildlife activities. 

Section 7 establishes an Indian Fish Hatchery Program 

within the Bureau of Indian Affairs to produce and distribute to 

Indian trib~s~a variety of species of fish and to assist tribes 

to develop tribal hatcheries and enhance fish resources on the 

reservation. We suggest the program purpose in section 7(a) be 

broadened to include the distribution of fish to Federal, State, 

and local agencies . Section 7(bf calls for a Needs Report to 

Congress to identify the maintenance, rehabilitation, and 

construction needs of tribal hatchery facilities. It is our 

understanding that the language of section 7 is intended to cover 

only existing tribal facilities. My Tribe and others in the 

Southwest hope to obtain funds to construct new facilities. We 

suggest sections 7(a) and (b) be amended to cover new facilities. Income and employment from fishing activities on San Carlos 

Lake are vital to our economy. The lake is stocked by fish 

produced at a Fish and Wildlife hatchery, and we support the 

continuation of this service. In cooperation with the Fish and 

Wildlife Service, the Tribe has developed plans and a budget for a tribal warm-water hatchery at Talkalai Lake. The proposed new 

hatchery would produce and distribute species of fish other than 

those produced by the Fish and Wildlife hatchery and would serve 

lakes and streams on our Re s ervation and throughout the region. 

We will furnish a copy of our proposal. 

We wholeheartedly endorse the provisions of section 9 

relating to Education in Fish and Wildlife Resource Management. 

The importance of such targeted education programs has been 

convincingly demonstrated by the education provisions of the 

Indian Health Care Improvement Act. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony . Thank you. 
61 

Mr. RICHARDSON. The Ron. Julia Davis. It's nice to see you 

again. 

STATEMENT OF JULIA DAVIS 

Ms. DAVIS. Thank you. Good afternoon. Taasts haluxpt. That 

means good afternoon in Nez Perce. As you know, my name is Julia 

Davis. I am vice chairperson of the Nez Perce Tribe. 

I commend the committee for their leadership in taking the initiative in developing this legislation to improve the management of 

Indian fish and wildlife resources on Indian lands. 

I welcome the opportunity to testify before this committee in support of H.R. 287 4. 

We have submitted written testimony and what I would like to 

do at this time is just summarize. I was looking through the bill, 

section-by-section and the Nez Perce Tribe is encouraged that H.R. 

2874 ls promoting the government-to-government relationship regarding the consultation of tribes. 

I think that is a very important part in the bill and I think all 

the tribes are in agreement with that, and promoting the Indian 

self-determination. The development enhancement of the capacity 

of Indian tribes to manage Indian fish and wildlife resources is 

very, very important. 

The funding issue regarding the development and enforcement of 

tribal codes is crucial not just to the Nez Perce, but to many other 

tribes as well. This is in section 5(c). 

The Nez Perce Tribe has been working diligently on updating the 

law and order code and to see the wording to provide financial and 

technical assistance to Indian tribes to review and revise existing 

tribal codes and ordinances regarding the management of fish and 

wildlife is very refreshing. 

It is something that we have been looking for for a long time. It 

has been a long time coming. We have asked many different agencies for help regarding this, getting our tribal law and order codes 

updated. The Nez Perce is very supportive towards section 7 regarding the 

establishment of Indian fish hatchery program within the Bureau 

of Indian Affairs, and to assist the development of tribal fish hatcheries. 

I think as the tribes in the Northwest, not just the Nez Perce, 

we have been looking for assistance from Federal agencies, whether 

it be BPA or whoever, on getting fish hatcheries established on our 

reservations. 

We , as one of the tribes, have been working the past five years 

with the Bonneville Power Administration, and we have constantly 

run into barriers. No, there is no funding there, and it has been 

very discouraging for the tribe to be constantly told, no, we can't 

do it this year, maybe next year. 

I attended what they call it a CFWA meeting, Columbia Fish and 

Wildlife meeting, and at that time we were discussing fish hatcheries. The Nez Perce Tribe was very adamant in our position that 

they help us in trying to get a fish hatchery established on the reservation. 

We are still working on that, but it is so good to see that finally 

through this bill that something is going to be written in there. 

83-120 0 - 94 - 3 
62 

I also agree with the gentleman from San Carlos. We fully support the cooperative education program for the BIA to recruit Indian students for employment as professional fisheries and wildlife 

biologists. This is a very crucial part of the Indian tribal government goal of having your own people come back and work with 

your programs. 

We have established a student intern program within our fisheries department, and that has been working very, very well. We 

went out on a helicopter tour this past summer and saw some of 

our interns out working in the streambeds. It really made us feel 

good as tribal leaders to see that they were working for the tribe 

and learning more from the wildlife. 

The final comment I would like to make is on the section 10. Section 10 requires the Secretary to promulgate final regulations implementing this act within 18 months. I think this is excellent, and 

you also have in there full and active participation of Indian tribes. 

I can't emphasize enough how important that is to have the tribes 

involved. 

Thank you. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Thank you, very much. [Prepared statement of Ms. Davis follows:] 
63 

4 ~XECUTIVE COMMITTEE P .U. UUX :JU5 • LJ\PWAI. IUA/10 83540 • (200) 843-2253 

TESTIMONY OF 

JULIA DAVIS, VICE CHAIRPERSON 

NEZ PERCE TRIBAL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 

Before the 

Native American Affairs Sub-Committee 

October 8, 1993 

on the 

"Indian Fish and Willife Resource Enhancement Act of 1993" 

Good afternoon, Chairman Richardson. My name is julia Davis, 

Vice Chairperson of the Nez Perce Tribal Executive Committee. On behalf 

of the Nez Perce Tribe of Idaho, I commend the chairman and the 

committee for their leadership in taking the initiative in developing this 

legislation to improve the management of Indian fish and wildlife 

resources on Indian lands. l welcome the opportunity to testify before this 

committee in support of IIR 2874. 

Tribal Background 

The Nez Perce Tribe had exclusive use and occupancy on over 

thirteen million acres of land in what is now north central Idaho, 

southeastern Washington state, and northeastern Oregon. In addition to 

these lands, the Nez Perce people extended tl1 eir hunting, fishing, trading, 

and ga thering westward down the Columbia River and eastward into 

Montana . 

We depended on the land and its creatures for physical and spiritual 

sustenance. Our daily activities refl ected our understand ing and 

relationship with the natural cycles of the land and river's fish, wildlife 

and plants. 
64 

In our 1855 and 1863 treaties - we ceded to the U.S. government a 

vast portion of our land leaving a reservation of 750,000 acres, of which 

only 12 percent is currently held by the Nez Perce Tribe and individual 

tribal members. In the 1855 treaty we reserved the right to hunt, gather 

and pasture livestock on open and unclaimed lands and to take fish at all 

usual and accustomed places outside our reservation. 

Comments 

With a diminished land base and a vast treaty area, this legislation is 

vital to supporting our continual struggle to affirm our authority on our 

reservation and affirm the U.S. government's trust responsibility through 

out our treaty area. In addition, the bill will elevate the status of fish and 

wildlife management and begin to put it in on par with other natural 

resource programs. 

The Nez Perce Tribe is not simply another "interested party." In 

addition to the provisions contained in our treaty we have also 

demonstrated we have the scientific and technical capabilities to be wise 

resource managers. However, at times we face barriers in dealing with 

the state and federal agencies as a co-manager of the regions resources. 

We support the language recognizing our rights as it will strengthen our 

ability to bring our expertise to the table to resolve critical issues impacting 

our fish and wildlife resources. 

Under "Section 6 Tribal Consultation", the Secretary is required to 

consult and seek participation of tribes when departmental action affects 

their resources. However, under Finding 2 it is recognized that the trust 

responsibility and government to government relationship extends to all 

federal agencies. Therefore, we encourage the Committee to include all 

federal agencies actions and not just those actions in the Department of 

Interior. 

The Nez Perce Tribe has already shown leadership in managing their 

wildlife and fish resources. The Indian Fish Hatchery Program can 

extenuate our existing efforts in helping to restore fish populations. To 

enhance our efforts we need operation and maintenance support that will 

Pa e 2, Testimony of Julia Davis, Vireo Chairperson, Ne1.1'erce Tribal Executive Committl>e 
65 

be provided by this legislation to improve fish and wildlife habitat, and 

focus efforts on the critical areas associated with the diminishing fish and 

wildlife populations. In addition, this will improve our monitoring and 

evaluation efforts as well as assist us in coordinating with other fish and 

wildlife managers of other tribes in Oregon and Washington state as well 

as state and federal managers. 

Summary 

The Nez Perce Tribe appreciates the opportunity to offer our views 

on this legislation to improve the management of Indian fish and wildlife 

resources on Indian lands. We offer our commitment to you to establish 

and maintain a healthy population and habitat for the fish and wildlife 

resources that we all enjoy in our region. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you again for this opportunity to appear 

before your committee and for your well recognized efforts on behalf of 

Native Americans. 

Page 3., Testimony o( julia Davis, Vice Chairperson, Nez Perce Tribal Executive Committee 

Post Office Box 305, La wai, Idaho 83540 
66 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. George Dupuis. 

STATEMENT OF GEORGE DUPUIS 

Mr. DUPUIS. Good afternoon. My name is George Dupuis, vice 

chairman of the Fond du Lac Reservation. I do appreciate the time 

that was given here for oral testimony. I realize you do have written testimony up there, and I would reserve my time and turn it 

over to the next member. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Dupuis follows:] 
67 

Fond du Lac Reservation 

Business Committee i05L!r,i\'o·r::llv RC>ad , 

~l<J ..:l., f,IN 55720 

Phon.: <2 i ~) !\79.4593 

Fax (21X) XN-4! d6 

~"~ 

· r'·/·;:i,i ·,•; \', ~~s. !/ 

~~~~ / 

Chairma r. 

Robert 9 . l'cacod: 

Se crct ar •,/Trc:uurcr 

Peter J. O::roc 

Diu. I c .. ~r,.,Jma n 

Clifton lh hideaul 

Oist. II Caunl:llman 

IIerman i~ e 

Dis1. Ill <:ou ncil maJt 

George Du pu i~ 

Executive Director 

I. Jean Mu l(l<: r 

October 5, 1993 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Native American Affairs 

Committee on Natural Resources 

Re: Written Testimony on the Indian Fish and Wildlife Resource Enhancement Act of 1993 

(H.R. 2874) 

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, my name is George Dupuis. I am Vice Chairman of 

the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa. I wish to express my appreciation for this 

opportunity to presen! our testimony on the Indian Fish and Wildlife Resource Enhancement Act 

of 1993 (H.R. 2874), to the Subcommittre on Native American Affairs of the House 

Committee on Natuml Resources. 

The Fond duLac Reservation is a sovereignty, created by the Treaty of September 30, 1854, 10 

Stat. 1109. The Fond duLac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa is one of three Chippewa Bands 

which retain specific Treaty rights within the territory ceded by the Treaty of 1854. We are also 

one of six bands within the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe. The Fond duLac Reservation is a 

member of the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission and the Native American Fish 

and Wildlife Society. Our Reservation is located about 20 miles west of Duluth, Minnesota, and 

encompasses about 100,000 acres. There arc presently some 4,200 Fond duLac Band Members. 

The Indian Fish and Wildlife Resource Enhancement Act of 1993 is an important Act which 

reaffirms the trust responsibility of the United States to "protect, conserve, and enhance the 

Indian fish and wildlife resources". The Fond du Lac Reservation is committed to the protection 

and enhancement of the Fond duLac Bands fish and wildlife resources. The Fond du Lac · 

Conservation Enforcement Department, Natural Resources Progran1, Forestry Program, Ceded 

Territory Conservation Enforcement Program, and the Ceded Territory Fisheries Biologist are 

professionally staffed conservation enforcement and natural resource management programs 

which protect and manage the fish and wildlife resources of the Fond du Lac Band. The Fond du 

Lac Community College is a Tribal college which is planning to expand its current capabilities in 

educating Native American students in the natural sciences and natural resource protection and 

management. This Act would assist Tribes in their efforts to better manage the natural resources 

that are so important to the Native American culture and livelihood. The recognition, in Sec . 2, 

Finding (5), that "Indian tribes have jurisdiction over Indian and non-Indian hunting and fishing 

activities on Indian reservations and function as comanagers with tribal, States, and Federal 

authorities to carry out shared management responsibilities for fish and wildlife resources arising 

from treaties, statutes, or court orders;" is very important to tl1e Fond du Lac Band to protect the 

fish and wildlife resources of the Band. In order to strengthen and improve the Act to accomplish 

its full potential, we offer the following additional comments and recommendations. 
68 

The House bill clearly reaffirms the Indian hunting, f1shing, and gathering rights; and supports and 

strengthens the Tribal conscrvacion enforcement and natural resource management programs. When 

implemented, this Act will improve the protection and enhancement of these resources. so that these 

rights can be exercised in a meaningful way. The establishment of an Indian Fish and Wildlife 

Resource Management Program within the Bureau of lndian Affairs (BIA), which would include 

conservation enforcement, is the proper way to manage these programs which have basically the 

same goals and objectives. 1bc emphasis within the bill on Education in Fish and Wildlife Resource 

Management is good, however it could be expanded. and we v.ill be suggesting some specific 

recommendations on this concern. 

Section 2. Findings The reaffirmation of trust responsibility of the United States "to protect, 

conserve, and enhance the Indian fish and wildlife resources" is clearly stated, and it is proper that it 

extends to all Federal agencies. The rest of Section 2 is well constructed, except for the following 

recommended changes. 

- The proposed Finding (4) should begin with the following wording in addition to the existing text, 

and would !hen become Finding (I): 

Since time immemorial Indians have developed cultures religious beliefs and customs 

around their relationships with fish and wildlife resources and have relied on these resources 

for food shelter clothing tools and trade. 

lb..is language expresses the relationship that Native Americans have with the narural world, and is 

the wording contained within the draft Senate bill. This would renumber the other Finding 

accordingly. 

- The proposed Finding (2) should have rhe words "fish and wildlife conservation" from lines 8 and 

9 of page 2 deleted, so that the text would read as follows on lines 5 rhrough 10: 

... This trust responsibility extends to all Federal agencies and departments and absent a 

clear expression of congressional intent to the contrary, the United States has a duty to 

administer Federal laws in a manner consistent with the treaty rights of Indian tribes; 

Trust responsibility is a broad based responsibility and should be consistently interpreted by 

Congress in its broadest tenns. The statement :s clear in that trust responsibility extends to all 

Federal agencies. There arc many Federal laws thal have an affect on the protection and 

management of natural resources, and therefore all Federal laws should be administered to be 

consistent with our treaty rights. 

The proposed Finding (5) is a very important statement which clarifies and confirms that: 

"Indian tribes have jurisdiction over Indian and non-Indian hunting and fishing activities on 

Indian reservations and function as comanagers with tribal, States, and Federal authorities to 

carry out shared management responsibilities for fish and wildlife resources arising from 

treaties, statures, or court orders;" 

The language in this statement will help clarify this government to goverrunent relationship and the 

wording should not be changed. The language in Finding (6) is also appropriate and will affinn 

the support needed to carry out the conservation enforcement and natural resource management. 

L---------------FOND DULAC, R.B.C.~--...11 
69 

Section 4. Definitions This section is generally \veil wrincn and helps clarify these important tenns, 

a lthough there are some important definitions which need clarification: 

- The proposed Definition (8) regarding "Indian Land" should have the words "and is subject to 

restrictions against alienation" deleted . Therefore, line I I on page 6 should read: 

(B) an Indian or Indian tribe. 

This will ensure that tribes have primary control of the natural resources within their j urisdiction. 

- The proposed Definition (11) which defines the term "integrated resource management plan" 

states that these plans, or IRMP's, will "provide identified holistic management objectives". This 

term, holistic management objectives, should be defined in order to clarify this term as we 

understand it. We offer the following definition: Holistic management objectives will be developed 

using the Indian cultural values and scientific understanding of the ecosystem approach. The 

objectives should be detcnnined in keeping with the traditional Indian beliefs which recognizes and 

understands: lhe need to honor and protect the integritv of ecosvstcms· the inux>rtance of preserving 

the biodiversity of fish and wildlife soecies and the need for protecting and oroocrly managing the 

aquatic and terrestrial ecosvstems which the fish and wildlife and we need to survive. Therefore 

holistic management obiectives should be based on these cultural values and scientific principles. 

The natural resources, as well as our cultural traditions and values, have been taken from us or are 

often mismanaged to provide the raw materials for "progress 11 • That is why the tri bes need as much 

latitude as possible ln. determining these "holistic management objectives", based on cultural values 

as well as scientific knowledge, which now confinns the wisdom of the cultural values of our 

ancestors. This understanding must not be underestimated. A scientific and anthropological study, 

presented to the American Association for the Advancement of Science some years ago, compared 

and examined the environmental impacts of various cultures that have developed on the earth. The 

srudy detennined that the "hunter I gatherer" culture, such as that of our ancestors, was the only 

culture that could survive indefinitely, without destroying the ecosystems and depleting the natural 

resources of this planet. We should realize the wisdom of our ancestors and learn how to protect and 

better manage these essential and finite natural resource~. Hopefully, this Act will help us ~ark 

together to accomplish this worthy goal. 

- The proposed Definition ( II} regarding "integrated resource management plans" should have the 

following additional wording, "cultural values biodiversity", included on line 4 of page 7. Definition 

(II) should also have the words "traditional wild crops and medicinal plants" inserted in line 6 of 

page 7, and would read as follows: 

(II) The term "integrated resource management plan" means the plan developed pursuant 

to the process used by tribal governments lo assess available resources and lo provide 

identified holistic management objectives that include quality of life, cultural values, 

biodiversity, production goals, and landscape descriptions of all designated resources that 

may include (but not be limited to) water, fish , wildlife, forestry, traditional wild crops and 

medicinal plants, agriculture, minerals, and recreation, as well as community and municipal 

resources, and may include any previously adoptcxl. tribal codes and plans related to such 

resources. 

----------------FOND DULAC, R.B.C.~---.. 
70 

The proposed Definition (6) as worded would include wild rice, which is an important naturally 

occurring plant in our region. We feel that the addition of the above tenns is necessary to stress the 

importance of these traditional wild crops and medicinal plants. Wild rice lakes in our region are 

declining and need extraordinary management efforts to maintain or restore them. Other wild crops 

and traditional medicinal plants do not receive the protection they deserve either. 

- The proposed Definition (12) states that "forest land management activities" shall not be included 

in "resource management activities". We understand why this language is used. but it should be 

clarified that wildlife management and other natural and cultural resource management must be 

considered in planning and canying out forest activities. This also fits within our WJderstanding of 

holistic management objectives. 

Section 5. Indian Fish and Wildlife Resource Management Program 

This section confirms that the "Secretary shall provide for management of Indian fish and wildlife 

resources" under the "provisions of the Indian Sclf·Determination and Education Assistance Act 

(Public Law 93-638). This section is well wrinen except that this Act should be referred to in this 

bill by the U.S. Code cite of25 U.S.C. Sect. 450 ~ g:g. This would include all the amendments to 

the Act. The other minor changes are: 

- The proposed Sec. 5(a)(l) should have the words integrity of the ecosyste!!!,~, inserted 

into the text on line I 0 of page 8. This is necessary to make a broader and more appropriate range 

of considerations regarding natural resource protection and management. 

- The proposed Sec. 5(a)(4) should have the words "selectively develop and" and "certain" deleted, 

in order to make the meaning more clear, while still retaining the intent of the passage. It would then 

read: 

(4) To increase production of fish and wildlife resources in order to provide for the 

subsistence, economic, and employment needs of Indian tribes. 

The proposed Section 5(b) confirms the authority for the Dept. of Interior to establish an "Indian 

Fish and Wildlife Resource Management Program", however we feel that a large bureaucracy should 

not be developed to administer this Program. In order to avoid this pitfall we recommend the 

following additional language (underlined) in this section: 

The Secretary, full consultation with Indian tribes, shall establish the indian Fish and 

Wildlife Resource Management Program in order to achieve the objectives set forth in 

subsection (a). The Secretary shall efficiently administer this Program in a manner that 

maximizes the transfer of financial resources to tribal fish and wildlife resource management 

programs. 

The proposed Section 5(c) Management Activities, should include language which covers the 

essential management activities of: fisheries and wildlife population and habitat protection and 

enhancement projects, carried out by tribal natural resource and conservation enforcement programs. 

This should be included as item Sec. 5(c)(7), and would be included as follows: 

(7) conducting fisheries and wildlife oopulation and habitat protection and enhancement 

projects carried out by tribal natural resource and conservation enforcement orograms . 

..._--------------FOND DULAC, R.B.C .. ---.....1 
71 

- The proposed Section 5(d) Assistance, should have language which clearly establishes that 

assistance ,-.ill be provided for the many fish and wildlife population and habitat protection and 

enhancement projects that are conducted and need to be developed for tribal natural resources. ln 

order to accomplish these tasks we rcconunend that a clause Sec. 5(d)(6) be established to provide 

for consistency and adequacy of support for these program functions. The wording could be as 

follows: 

(6) for conducting fish and wildlife population and habitat protection and enhancement 

projects by tribal natural resource and conservation enforcement programs. 

The proposed Section 5(e)(lXB) under the Indian Fish and Wildlife Resource Management Plans, 

the words and by approval of, so that the text reads: 

(B) If a tribe chooses not to contract the development or implementation to plan, the 

Secretary shall develop or implement the plan in close consultation with, and by approval of, 

the affected tribe. 

This is essential in order for tribes to have the right of sovereign control over their natural resources. 

• The proposed Section 5(c)(Z) on page 13, should have the words ,uoon review and authorization 

by the tribal resource and tribal government. This statement would read as follows: 

(2) Indian fish and wildJife management plans developed and approved under this section 

shall govern the management and administration of Indian fish and wildlife resources by the 

Bureau and the Indian tribal government, uoon the review and authorization by the tribal 

natural resource program and tribal govcrruncnt. 

This is necessary again for tribal government to have plans reviewed by their own natural resource 

programs and to have final authorization of these important management plans. 

Section 9. Education in Fish and Wildlife Resource Management 

This Section is very timely and much needed to increase our efforts at having well educated staff for 

our conservation enforcement and natural resource programs. The Fond du Lac Reservation has a 

very accomplished and renowned Tribal college, the Fond du Lac Community College, in Clcxtuet, 

Minnnesota. We strongly recommend that in Section 9 (a)(4)(b) Coooerative Education Program the 

following \vording be included on line 17, page 16: 

and to assist tribal community colleges develop curricula and programs for natural 

resource environmental and conservation enforcement education and training. 

l wish to thank the Chairman and the Committee Members for this opportunity to present this 

testimony on this important Act. 

..._--------------FOND DULAC, R.B.C.---....1 
72 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Chainnan Billy Frank. 

STATEMENT OF BILL FRANK, JR. 

Mr. FRANK. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chainnan. I am going to keep 

mine short. 

I am Bill Frank, chainnan of the Northwest Indian Fish Commission, in the great Northwest, and we are here to support H.R. 

2874. I second the people before me on their testimony, but I also 

want to commend you and your committee because we were here 

last February and testified, and you heard us. Your people heard 

us, and they put it in writing, and it is very close to all of us 

throughout our Nation as you hear the testimony. 

A lot of this trust responsibility, the government-to-government, the education, we know we are short on funding. We need to work 

on that, but this gets us down the road in recognition, and it is 

good to hear the Bureau of Indian Affairs supports this bill. We are 

happy to be here testifying today and thank you, Mr. Chainnan, 

and your staff. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Thank you very much, Chainnan Frank. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Frank follows:} 
73 

~. F ' 

Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission 

BF/btp 

Phone (206) 438-1 180 

FAX #753-8659 

6730 Martin Way E., Olympia, Washington 98506 

TESTIMONY 

OF BILL FRANK, JR. 

CHAIRMAN 

OF THE 

Phone {206) 753-9010 

FTS #434-9476 

NORTHWEST INDIAN FISHERIES COMMISSION 

BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIVE AMERICAN AFFAIRS 

OF THE 

HOUSE NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE 

ON H.R. 2875, THE INDIAN FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCE 

ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 1993 

INTRODCCTION 

On behalf of the member tribes of the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission. I am 

pleased to come before the Comminee to discuss the Indian Fish and Wildlife Resource 

Enhancement Act of 1993. My name is Bill Frank. Jr. . and I am Chairman of the 

Commission. We are very happy that the Comminee has prioritized this bill for action and 

we look forward to working with you as this legislation develops. 

In February, we came before the Committee and presented comprehensive testimony on the 

need for federal legislation which supports Indian fishing. hunting and gathering rights. We 

nessed the need for tribal recognition and the federal trust responsibility to the tribes. We 

told you of the legal basis for tribal management of the resource. We also spoke of the 

contentious past history of resource management in the Pacific Northwest and more recently 

of the great strides being made in cooperatively managing the resources today. 

You heard our story, and have responded with draft legislation that furthers tribal 

management capabilities and recognizes many of the federal obligations and responsibilities 

to the tribes in the area of fish and wildlife mangement. You are to be commended for 

your vision. 

SECTION ANALYSIS AND COMMENTS 

y comments will be brief, and will focus on some changes that wi ll strengthen the bill. 

Overall. it appears that the bill, as deve loped, meets our basic interests. It appears to be 

bcused. not too expansive, and clean of misce llaneous provisions that it has a reasonable 
74 

focused. not too expansive, and clean of miscellaneous provisions that it has a reasonable 

chance to be approved. That is good, and we appreciate that this is a serious attempt to 

craft legislation that is reasonable and prudent. 

SECTION 2. FINDINGS 

We applaud the recognition of the special government-to-government relationship with the 

tribes and the federal government. The recognition of the trust responsibility to protect 

conserve and enhance Indian Fish and Wildlife resources consistent with a fiduciary trust is 

also an all important concept for the federal government to assert. Such trust must also 

extend to the related habitats of these species. We have seen in the Pacific Northwest that 

recognition of the trust responsibility and tribal governmental status are powerful tools that 

affirm tribal co-management authority and which can assist all the affected parties in better 

managing the resource and the habitat which it depends upon. 

SECTION 3. PURPOSES 

We concur in the purposes of the act. notably the requirement to reaffirm and protect Indian 

hunting and fishing rights and the need to maximize tribal capability and flexibility in 

managing affected resources. We also support the establishment of an educational 

assistance program and feel such a program will benefit tribal country with improved 

resource management. 

SECTION 5. INDIAN FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 

PROGRAM 

We support the management objectives included in this section. However, as noted above, 

we again suggest that protection of the habitat which the fish and wildlife species depend 

upon is also a critical objective of any Indian management program. 

We also support the provision requiring the contracting of any program within the 

Department of Interior, provided however that the affected tribe or tribal organization 

concur with that decision. All too often federal agencies have hid behind internal rules and 

procedures and have denied contracting opportunities with tribes and tribal organizations. 

This provision makes clear the ability and intent of the Department to contract with the 

tribes. and should be seen as a major cornerstone of the bill. 

We believe that Subsection 5 (d) Assistance could be strengthened if actual funding 

amounts were established in the bill. 

We are not certain of the provision to develop Indian Fish and Wildlife Resource 

Management Plans. We would hope that such plans would not be redundant to existing 

planning efforts, nor would they be a wasteful exercise of precious time and funds. We do 

not know what is meant by "public meetings" as a means to develop said plans. If the 

intent is to integrate and comprehensively manage resources. we are all in favor of the 

effort. We would like some claritication of this section. 
75 

SECTION 6. TRIBAL CONSULTATION 

We fully support this important provision and believe that if followed, would allow the 

tribes to more fully implement their governmental responsibilities. Such a provision would 

be extremely valuable in protecting tribal interests and rights. 

SECTION 7. INDIAN FISH HATCHERY PROGRAM 

The tribes in the Pacific Northwest have supported the establishment of an Indian Fish 

Hatchery Program that is sensitive to tribal goals and objectives. As written, this section 

appears that the tribes will have the major voice in the development of a needs report, and 

as such appears to be a first step to establish an effective Indian hatchery system. 

Tribes ·in the Pacific Northwest have extensive hatchery systems, and contribute over 50 

million >almon fry to the waters of the region, benefitting Indian and non-Indian alike. 

We assume the Committee intends. with tribal concurrence. to include into any proposed 

system those hatcheries that not only are operated by the tribes, but ~!so those that are 

operated. on behalf of the tribes by other federal agencies. Likewise, we assume that such 

hatcheri¢s do not have to be physically located on tribal lands, but may also be located off 

reservat.on in tribal ceded territory. 

SECTION 9. EDUCATION IN FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 

This provision is exceedingly important and far reaching. We believe the such a provision 

will bring more Indian resource managers into the profession, and will aid resource 

management. 

We would like to suggest that Subsection 9 (d) Fish and Wildlife Outreach be amended to 

allow tribes or tribal organizations to conduct such an effort. This reflects that regional or 

local efforts may be more appropriate than a national program. 

SECTION 13. AUTHORIZATIONS OF APPROPRIATIONS 

This se:tion does not authorize any funds. and as such lacks substance. Specifying 

amounts may be difficult, given the present practice of "scoring," but meaningful 

improv•:ments to Indian fish and wildlife management and effective implementation of 

various provisions of this bill will require adequate funding. 

CONCLUSION 

I am sure our member tribes may have some additional comments on the proposed 

legislation, and I encourage the Committee to seek continued input as the bill proceeds 

through the process. 

Again, thank you very much for the opportunity to provide our views on this bill. 
76 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Commissioner Don Wedll. 

STATEMENT OF DON WEDLL 

Mr. WEDLL. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for the opportunity to testify on this bill today. The Mille Lacs Reservation believes this is a very important bill in the implementation of Indian 

fish and wildlife management practices and resources. 

We have provided written testimony, but I would also like to 

identify three areas that I think are extremely important to tribal 

governments and tribal membership. The first area is in the area 

that I think over the past 50 years or so tribal members have lost 

access to vital resources, natural resources in their diets, and I 

think that that directly has impacted the health and welfare of 

tribal membership. Anything we can do to try to return tribal 

members to these important resources in their diets are extremely 

important, and I am glad that you have commented on that issue. 

The second area that we have experienced difficulty with, and I 

think that that r.an be dealt with within this bill, is in regard to 

lands that are owned by the tribal government themselves within 

the exterior boundaries of the reservation. The status of these 

lands, I believe, should be clarified that in general that these lands 

are subject to restriction from alienation, in general that these 

lands owned by the tribal governments are like government-owned 

lands and not necessarily have to be placed into trust or have that 

restriction applied, and probably that tribes upon a request form 

that this restriction would then apply. 

The third item I believe that is very important in this bill-and 

the question was raised with the Bureau-is the enforcement provisions that tribal governments do and have responsibilities for enforcing laws and management protection of resources and that the 

support in that both financial and administrative authority is very 

important for the implementation of this bill and the protection of 

resources. 

With that, I would like to thank you and your staff for having 

a very open and meaningful discussion on this. Thank you very 

much. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Thank you very much. [Prepared statement of Mr. Wedll follows:] 
B

\.r..cs -

~ ..,~ 

:r C) 

. ' '· "' . -- ~~~-/ 

77 

MILLE LACS BAND OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS 

Ewcutit'e Bran~h of Tribal Got·emment 

Statement by: 

The Mille Lacs Band or O!lbwe Indians, 

Don Wedll. Commissioner or Natural Resources 

House Subcommittee on Native American Affairs 

on: H.R.2874, tbe Indian Fish and Wildlife Resource Enhancement Act of 1993 

October 7, 1993 

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, my name is Don Wedll. For the 

past twenty years I have worked for the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe Indians, and 

throughout the last eleven years I have served as their Commissioner of Natural 

Resources. As a Cabinet Member of the Executive Branch of tribal govemment, [ am 

an authorized representative of the Mille Lacs Band and have authority to speak on 

behalf of all issues involving the Band's Natural Resources. I am pleased to submit the 

Band's comments on H.R.2874, introduced on August 4, 1993, which is entitled, "The 

Indian Fish and Wildlife Resource Enhancement Act of 1993. 

Today, tribal members are afflicted with some of the highest rates of diabetes and 

arthritis nationwide, and have an average life-expectancy of 47 years of age. We believe 

that tribal members are afflicted with these problems because of the dramatic dietruy 

change which affected many Indian people in only recent times - namely, insufficient 

natural resources for maintenance of a diet which had previously been virtually 

unchanged for nearly 1,000 years or more. 

Mr. Chairman, to the extent that this legislation will have a direct impact on my 

professional_ responsibilities, I am very appreciative to you for this opportunity to 

comment on this legislation. Throughout my studies and observations over the last 

twenty years, one thing has become clear to me. Tribal governments, through their 

cultural and religious customs, rules, and practices, have regulated the use of natur al 

resources for the benefit of tribal members since time immemorial. Historically, the 

tribal management system has provided a balance allowing tribal members to exist and 

natural resources to flourish. What was simply common sense for tribal leaders, would 

today be called an "Economically Sustainable Environment." Today we are in a transition 

in our past natural resource management system, which cannot sustain the present use 

HCR 67. &ll' 194. Onamia, MinnuoLa 56J59 (612) 5Jl-418l FAXI t6121 ); . .s209 
78 

Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe Testimony on H.R.2874. October 8. 1993 

by society without some modification. 

Mr. Chairman, the Mille Lacs Band strongly supports the first goal, or "purpose", 

of this legislation, which is "reaffirming and protecting Indian hunting, fishing, and 

gathering rights" and to provide for the conservation, management, and use of the 

resources. All other stated purposes in H.R.2874, which include supporting selfdetermination, self-governance, and maximizing tribal capability and flexibility in 

managing the resources are intrinsic to protecting Indian treaty rights. We commend the 

Committee for affirming the intent of the Congress in this regard. 

The following comments address certain key elements of H.R.2874, and in some 

instances provides recommendations. In those instances, the Mille Lacs Band respectfully 

requests that the Subcommittee consider those minor revisions to H.R.2874, which we 

believe would make necessary perfections to this legislation. 

1) We submit that the ''Findings" section, (Sect.2(2)) be amended to read, ... "This trust 

responsibility extends to all Federal agencies and departments and absent a clear 

expression of congressional intent to the contrary, the United States has a duty to 

administer Federal fish and wildlife conservation laws and aU other reflltive Federal laws 

in a manner consistent with the treaty rights of Indian tribes. 

This language would simply clarify that all other federal laws, for example, 

environmental laws, not necessarily related to fish and wildlife regulation but having an 

impact on such regulation, be administered within the scope of the trust responsibility. 

The change would delete the limiting phrase. The United States should administer all 

federal laws in a manner consistent with treaty rights. 

2) Within the "Findings" Section, we strongly support Sect.2(5), and believe it to be 

a critical a~pect of H.R.2874, necessary for the delineation of jurisdictional authority and 

resource management and protection. 

(3) We suggest that within the ''Definitions" section, Sect.4(8) be amended to include 

a subpart (C), which would read, "and aU tribally owned lands within the erterior boundaries 

of a reservation and managed by the tribal government, subject to restriction from alienation." 

This language would simply clarify for the record this federal policy, as currently 

practiced by the Interior Department and the Environmental Protection Agency. 

(4) Within Section 5, "Indian Fish and Wildlife Resource Management Program", 

Sec.5(a) should be amended to read, "Consistent with the provisions of the Indian SelfDetermination and Education Assistance Act (Public Law 93-638,25 U.S.C. 450 et.seq.) 

the Secretary shall ... " 

This language would simply make clear that the provisions of the Self-Governance 

Page 2 
79 

Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe Tc;stimony on H.R-2874. October 8. 1993 

Demonstration Project and other related amendments to P.L.93-638 apply. 

(5) We believe it is critical that report language make it clear that, within the 

Secretary's authority to provide for the enhanced management of Indian fish and wildlife 

resources, that this Act is not intended to support or create a larger bureaucracy, but 

rather that the Secretary's role is to support tribal management plans and initiatives, 

ensuring that they are effectively developed and carried out. 

(6) We would like to clarify our understanding that Section 5(a)(4), allows tribes to 

identify and manage specific resources important to tribes outside of the generally 

accepted principles that govern "integrated resources management practice." 

(7) We suggest that in report language, the Subcommittee ensure that the Secretary 

is aware that within Secretarial authorities under Section 5(b)(l), which addresses the 

"Management Program", that the Secretary not disregard tribal progress in this area 

Many tribes have actively been developing and applying Resource Management Programs 

within their natural resource programs. 

(8) We submit that Section 5(b)(3), be amended to read, ''The Secretary, upon the 

request of any Indian tribe or tribal organization, shall enter into a contract with the tribe 

or tribal organization, which 11UlJ include a compact of Self-Governance, to plan, conduct.. 

This change would simply ensure that Self-Governance tribes can incorporate 

Indian fish and wildlife resource programs administered by the Secretary within their 

c:ompact of Self-Governance. 

(9) We submit that the Subcommittee consider amending Section 5(e)(5), under 

"Management Activities", to read, "the development of tribal conservation and habilllt 

protection nstoration programs, including employment... 

The added language would clarify that habitat protection is in fact within the 

bounds of the definition of tribal "conservation". 

(10) The Band strongly supports Section 5(e), entitled "Indian Fish and Wildlife 

Resource Management Plans", which we believe provides tribal governments with the 

necessary support and enhancement of their authority to make meaningful management 

1·egulations and implement workable co-management agreements. 

(11) Under Section 7, the "Indian Fi~h Hatchery Program", we would like the 

Subcommittee to clarify that while many tribal fish hatchery programs are effective tools 

for the enhancement of fish resources, that hatcheries are not the only tool available. 

The protection and enhancement of natural spawning areas is a critical component to fish 

productivity and is an effective hatchery for fish enhancement. If financial resources are 

to be available to tribes under this Section, the Subcommittee should consider that the 

Page 3 
80 

Mi[/e Lacs Band o f Ojibwe Testimony on H.R.2874 Oc/ober 8. /993 

protection of natural spawning areas to be important to the maintenance of fish 

hatcheries. 

(12) We strongly support Section 9, which is entitled, "Education in Fish and Wildlife 

Resource Management." The ability to employ a trained, professional individual who 

understands tribal culture and fish and wildlife resources management concepts is crucial 

to the successful implementation of management plans. 

Mr. Chairman, there is one other critical issue which is key to the Mille Lacs Band 

- that is, our right to enforce our tribal conservation code and the federal government's 

recognition and support of that right. 

There can be no denying that the federal government's position is clearly that a 

tribe has the jurisdiction and authority to enforce its tribal conservation code through 

employment of Conservation Officers. Tribes have been doing so for decades. It would 

make sense that if a tribe can employ conservation officers, then the federal government 

ls ~J recognizes that tribal conservation officers have the capability to enforce the laws 

they were employed to enforce. For enforcement purposes, this simply means 

authoriLation to carry a side-arm and make arrests - these are two authorities which are 

very basic to any kind of law enforcement, and no diffe rent from how state and federal 

._,cns('rvation officers enforce state and federal conservation laws. 

In spite of that simple rationalization, which is easily supported by federal Indian 

l;,;v.·, policies of the federal government, and wngrcssional actioP., some state and local 

govemments have rejected tribal conservation enforcement authority. At Mille Lacs 

alone, in the past, our conservation officers have been told they would be arrested by 

County officers for carrying side-artns. 

H.R.2874 affirms the inherent, sovereign right of Indian tribes to manage their 

natural resources, more so by what the bill does not say than by what it does. In similar 

legislation introduced in the Senate, a provision was included which makes it clear that 

as part of their natural resource management plans, tribes have the authority to enforce 

the laws which govern tribal resource management. It is our understanding that this 

Committee intentionally left that enforcement provision out of this legislation, because 

conservation enforcement is in fac t an inherent, sovereign right of tribal government. 

Therefore, there was no need for the Congress to legislatively recognize a right which 

already clearly exists. 

Mr. Chairman, th ~ Mille La.:s Band of Ojibwe whole-heartedly agrees. The Band 

has the sovereign, inherent right, through employing tribal conservation officers, to 

enforce our own tribal conservation codes for the protection of our resources as part of 

our natural resource management plan. However, as is obvious from examples which I 

cited earlier, there are dearly state and local governments which disagree with the 

Congress and the tribes on this point. 

Page 4 
81 

Mi/Je Lacs Band of Ojibwe Testimony Oil H.R.2874, October 8. 1993 

We understand that recognition to already exist in H.R.2486. Various sections 

within H.R.2874 assume the enforcement authority, including Section S(c)l, which in part 

states: 

"Indian fish an wildlife resource management activities carried out under the program 

establishcd ... may include (but shall not be limited to), (!) the development, 

implementation, and enforcement of tribal codes, ordinances, and regulations .. ", and, "(5) 

the development of tribal conservation programs, including employment and training af 

tribal conservation enforcement officers .. ". 

Other sections assume that conservation officers have enforcement authority as 

well, including Section 5( d), which in part reads: 

'The Secretary is authorized to provide financial and technical a'isistancc to enable indian 

tribes to - ... (4) provide training to and develop curricula for Indian fish and wildlife 

w;ource personnel, including tribal conservation officers, which incorporate law 

enforcement, fish and wildlife conservation, identification and resource management 

principles nd techniques ... " 

It is our understanding that the fish and wildlife management plan provides for 

Secretarial recognition of tribal law enforcement authority. Clearly, tribes have the 

sovereign, inherent right of tribal conservation officers to carry out all such 

responsibilities and duties which arc intrinsic to law enforcement. 

On the whole, Mr. Chairman, H.R.2874 is an excellent bill and the Mille Lacs 

Band strongly supports it's enactment. We would appreciate the Suhcommitt~e's views 

on. our recommended changes, and would be pleased to provide any furthe r infonuation 

which you request. On behalf of the Mille Lacs Band, I extend the Band's sincere 

appreciation to you, Mr. Chairman, for inviting me to testifY here today. If you have any 

questions, I would be pleased to answer them at this time. 

Page 5 
82 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Heckert. 

STATEMENT OF MARK HECKERT 

Mr. HECKERT. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. My name is Mark 

Heckert. I am the executive director of the InterTribal Bison Cooperative out of Rapid City, South Dakota. I am grateful for the opportunity to testify here on behalf of the ITBC regarding H.R. 

2874, the Indian Fish and Wildlife Resource Enhancement Act of 

1993. 

Again, I would like to echo the comments of the previous speakers in saying that we, too, have worked for a while with the committee. When the initial parts of the bill came out, they asked for 

substantive comments. We felt we were able to give them, and the 

bill, as it has turned out now, has been something that has been 

satisfying to us and the needs of our member tribes. 

To give you a little background on the ITBC, it is a nonprofit 

501(c)(3) tribal organization established to support the enhancement and restoration, reintroduction of buffalo to Indian land in a 

manner which integrates the tribal traditions and cultural beliefs 

with modern management principles. The organization is presently made up of 26 tribes from 14 

States, including two from New Mexico, Taos and Picuris Pueblo. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Are they here? 

Mr. HECKERT. No, they sent me. Although each member tribe 

has a unique relationship with the bison, all recognize the paramount importance of bison restoration. This is aimed at restoring 

reservation ecologies in a manner that is economically profitable, 

culturally compatible and socially acceptable to the tribal communities who participate in this holistic and sustainable resource 

management approach. 

The ITBC strongly supports the development of legislation. which 

will acknowledge and support the rights and responsibilities of 

tribes in the management of their natural resources. It is essential 

that the legislative action guarantee tribes full participation in the 

protection of their most precious fish, wildlife, and recreation resources as defined by treaty rights and associated court actions regarding tribal treaty rights cases as well as applicable executive orders and congressional acts. It is equally important to preserve and 

protect the tribal cultures which are based upon and continue to 

depend upon these fish and wildlife resources. 

Tribal bison production, as with tribal fisheries production, is a 

present day manifestation of subsistence activities which have been 

a way of life for Indian people in the past and are critically important for their future. 

I will end my prepared remarks there and kind of summarize to 

keep things going here. The one thing I wanted to highlight is that 

regardless that this legislation is directed towards tribes and tribal 

land bases, this is just simply a good resource management policy 

that is being developed here. Whether it would be for tribal land 

bases or just general resource management, you are allowing a 

land base of some 52 million acres to finally receive some support 

from the Federal Government in a consistent manner. 

Just in response to one of your questions to the BIA personnel, 

regarding the comparable spending levels, the BIA in 1990 in the 
83 

rangeland management department conducted a study on comparable funding levels and staffing levels within BIA rangeland 

and the U.S. Forest Service and BLM. The figures they came up 

with, at least for rangeland management, was that BIA and tribal 

staffing levels were approximately at 25 percent of the government 

agency for similar land bases. 

One of the other aspects I would like to mention is that the legislative process has got to start taking up working in behalf of the 

tribes in cases like U.S. v Borland. The Cheyenne River I Missouri 

River case has served to remove and deteriorate tribal fisheries 

management rights and their resource management rights. It is 

very important that the legislative arm of the government is supportive and behind resource management at the tribal level. 

The last aspect I would like to take up is the funding of the 

projects and things that are proposed in the legislation. I know of 

some other conservation-geared legislation that has been authorized for years and never funded, and I think it is real important 

that this does receive funding. I think it is important that the committee and the tribes themselves work within the present frame- work and also explore new avenues of funding such as the Federal 

Aid program, perhaps the Land and Water Conservation program, 

and other avenues to provide adequate funding for the tribal bison 

projects as well as other natural resource management projects 

that the tribes and intertribal organizations propose. With that, I will be happy to answer any questions that you 

might have. Thank you. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Thank you very much. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Heckert follows:] 
84 

Testimony to U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on 

Native American Affairs regarding H.R. 2874, 

Indian Fish and Wildlife Resource Enhancement Act of 1993. 

Presented by Mark Heckert, Executive Director 

InterTribal Bison Cooperative. 

October 8, 1993 

I am Mark Heckert, Executive Director of the InterTribal Bison Cooperative (ITBC). 

I am grateful for the opportunity to testify to this Committee on behalf of the ITBC regarding 

li. R. 2874, the Indian Fish and Wildlife Resource Enhancement Act of 1993. 

The InterTribal Bison Cooperative is a nonprofit 501 (c)(3} tribal organization 

established to support the enhancement and/or reintroduction of buffalo to Indian lands in 

a manner which integrates tribal traditions and cultural beliefs with modem management 

principles. The organization comprises 26 tribes (list attached} from 14 states (California, 

Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South 

D.1kota, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming}. Although each member tribe has a 

unique relationship with the bison, all recognize the paramount importance of bison 

;·esroration. This cooperative effort to restore bison herds is aimed at restoring reservation 

ecologies in a manner that is economically profitable, culturally compatible, and socially 

acceptable to the tribal communities who participate in this holistic and sustainable resource 

management approach. 

The ITBC strongly supports the development of legislation which will acknowledge 

and support the rights and responsibilities of tribes in the management of their natural 

resources. It is essential that legislative action guarantee tribes' full participation and 

pr,:,tection of their most precious fish, wildlife, and recreational · resources, as defined by 

treaty rights and associated Court actions regarding tribal treaty rights cases, as well as 

applicable Executive Orders and Congressional Acts. It is equally important to preserve and 

protect the tribal cultures which are based upon, and continue to depend upon, these fish 

and wildlife resources. T rib a I bison production, as with tribal fisheries production, is the 

present·day manifestation of subsistence activities which have been the way of life for Indian 

people in the past, and are critically important for their future. 

Currently, all Federal fish, wildlife and recreational legislation and aid that exists has 

systematically excluded Tribal governments from funding. Attempts to receive funding 

rhrougl1 the Endangered Species Act and the Federal Aid Programs have been strongly 

opposed by the states. Therefore, we fim1ly believe that legislation which recognizes and 

funds Tribes as full participants in fish, wildlife, and recreational management is necessary and 

!ong overdue. We also need a funding mechanism that allows funds to be distributed directly 

toT rib a I governments. Expanding Federal Agencies to carry out these management functions 

will only perpetuate Tribal dependence on the Federal Government. 

Although the ITBC has prioritized bison as a culturally sound focal point for ecological 

restoration, we recognize the importance of all wildlife species and their role in maintaining 
85 

and enhancing the qualiry of life for Indian people. The recognition of bison as a critical 

species within the prairie ecosystem not only has major implications for the restoration of the 

pr.Jirie, but also for the socio-economic, cultural, and spiritual well being of the tribes. Tribes 

have realized that their rangelands cannot sustain their people through management practices 

which focus on livestock and tend to ignore other equally important animals and plants. 

Indian lands have been subject, through Bureau of Indian Affairs programs, to grazing 

practices which produce livestock while ignoring or consciously eliminating a host of other 

species which constitute rangeland ecosystems. Tribal lands have been subject to predator 

and competitor control programs which have battered reservation ecologies and left them less 

productive for all the needs of tribal communities. The restoration of buffalo has renewed 

hope to many tribjJ members and has inspired some member tribes to develop long-range 

restoration plans which include their entire reservation ecosystems. 

For example, the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe has developed a "Prairie Management 

Plan", which is an alternative plan to poisoning for prairie dog control, and which recognizes 

the intrinsic value of all native species as an integral part of the ecosystem. The primary goal 

of their comprehensive plan is to allow prairie dogs, buffalo, black-footed ferrets, eagles, and 

m.my other wildlife species to co-exist with livestock production. This dramatic departure 

from poisoning prairie dogs will help restore, enhance, and maintain the prairie ecosystem 

for the benefit of future generations. Although the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe has enjoyed 

widespread support from governmental agencies and environmental groups, as well as 

Congress, they !lave yet to receive funding. Because the BIA lacks funding and the Tribe 

is ineligible for tile funding granted to states by the Endangered Species Act or the Federal 

Aid in Fish and Wildlife Restoration Acts, this project can only be conducted with the 

support of Congress through special appropriations or other legislative action. 

Because buffalo were the economic base of many Tribes in the past, restoration of 

buffalo to the Indian community also offers a tremendous opportuniry for economic 

development within a cultural framework. From a purely economic viewpoint, it is more 

profitable to raise bison than cattle. The practical fact is that buffalo are perfectly adapted 

to the harsh life on the plains. Bison are the most economical animals to raise for food and 

economical development purposes, and are the most environmentally sensitive creatures 

indigenous to the Great Plains. Buffalo could easily replace cattle, horses, and/or sheep 

because they require less land per animal unit, require little or no intervention by man in their 

life cycles, and are not subject to overgrazing of any particular portion of their enclosure if 

adequate area is maintained for the herd. Bison live off a variety of grasses, leaving the 

herbaceous vegetation for deer, elk, antelope and other wildlife and are thus perfectly 

compatible with tribal wildlife management objectives. Buffalo require less forage per pound 

of animal produced than other domestic animals, and are not subject to tile devastating 

effects of the harsh winter and summer climatic changes. Buffalo also protect their young 

fmm natural predators such as the coyote, black bear, and wolves (where they exist). Such 

protection means less problems for the ranciler who depends upon the herd for economic 

scrvival and reduces the necessity for killing of other wildlife for economic reasons. In 

addition to the commercial meat products whicil will be produced, tribal bison production 

offers the potential for further economic development through the initiation of corollary 

industries related to bison. In short, buffalo belong on the marginal rangelands of the United 

2 
86 

St;~tes and tribal leaders and their resource managers have come to recognize the buffalo's 

relevancy to future tribal management. 

In addition to the ecological and economic benefits which the reservations will 

derive, the restoration of bison to Indian people renews hope, and quite possibly offers the 

last opportunity for "grass roots" tribal members to recapture the spiritual and cultural 

essence of their being and re-affirm the traditional values that are so important to the 

preservation of their culture. Bison, the pursuit of bison, and the products derived from 

bison, defined every aspect of the lives of Plains Indian people. Bison were culturally 

significant to almost every tribe in North America. In conjunction with the destruction of 

the great bison herds, the language, the religion, the culture and the spirit of the American 

Indian were similarly being destroyed. This psychological and physiological destruction 

created a lost people, with no visible future, and an animal with no home. The complex 

cultural values and social dynamics of the plains tribes are so intertwined with bison that the 

reemblishment of bison is an inrew.-al part of restoring pride and self-esteem to Indian 

people, who view bison as a central element to their very existence. To Indian people, the 

t;~king of bison is a spiritual rituaL The bison represents a spiritual essence that developed 

through a co-existence for over 30,000 years. To re-establish healthy buffalo populations 

on T rib a I lands is to re-establish life itself for Indian people. " 

To provide for the support of tribal bison production projects in this Act, I am 

requesting, on behalf of the 26 tribes of the ITBC, that provisions specifically designed to 

assist tribes in their bison production and management activities be included in H.R. 2874, 

Indian Fish and Wildlife Enhancement Act of 1993 (Act). I have att;~ched to this testimony 

the specific language to be included in the Act to provide support to tribal bison 

enhancement efforts. This language includes an addition to Section 2 which describes the 

importance of the bison; Section 3 purposes, to include authorization of an Indian Bison 

Program; Section 4 definitions, to include bison projects; and specifications to Section 8 

"Indian Bison Conservation Program" with sections to define the continuing operation and 

maintenance of tribal bison production and management facilities. 

In closing, I would like to remind the committee of the critical role that fish and 

wildlife resources play in the daily lives of Indian people. For too long, Indian people have 

been denied the opportunity to develop and manage their own resources. The projects we 

have presented in this testimony are based on our traditional world view, which has become 

a driving rationale for natural resource management espoused by environment;~! experts 

across the world. We firmly believe that legislative action, which recognizes Tribes as full 

participants in fish, wildlife and recreational management, will enable us to assume our 

rightful place in land stewardship. 

We respectfully request that this committee communicate support for tribal bison 

conservation efforts to the Congressional Appropriations Committees. 

Thank you. 

3 
87 

PROVISIONS RECOMMENDED FOR INSERTION TO H. R. 2874, THE. 

" INDIAN FISH AND WILDLIFE. ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 1993" 

IN SUPPORT OF TRIBAL BISON CONSERVATION ACTIVITIES 

SEC. 2 FINDINGS 

(8) The American Bison was a primary wildlife species of the Great Plains ecosystem 

and the principle source of subsistence for Native American peoples throughout North America 

prior to the elimination of the great herds by government and market hunters, and continues to 

contribute spiritual , cultural, and economic benefit to Tribes through present tribal bison 

conservation activities. 

SEC. 3 PURPOSES 

(5) To authorize and establish an Indian Bison Program to meet Indian bison 

conservation and management needs, including the development of a Native American Bison 

Refuge to establish seed herds for tribal bison projects, and to train Indian people in bison 

management techniques. 

SEC. 4 DEFINITIONS 

(4) The term "tribal bison project " means any single-purpose or multi-purpose facility 

owned or operated by an Indian tribe which is engaged in the production, management, 

preservation, holding, or caring for bison, including related research and diagnostic bison health 

facil ities. 

(6) The term " Indian fish and wildlife resource" means any species of animal or plant 

life located on Indian reservations or in which Indians have a right protected by Federal law 

[ insert "and/or Treaty"] to fish, hunt, . 

SEC. 8. INDIAN BISON CONSERVATION PROGRAM 

(a) ESTABLISHMENT - The Secretary, with full and active participation of the bison 

producing tribes, shall establish an Indian Bison Program, the purpose of which shall be to 

suppon tribes in their initiation, production, management, and maintenance of their bison 

<Jperations to meet resource needs, including but not limited to , Indian subsistence, ceremonial, 

and commercial bison needs. 

(b) KEEDS REPORT - Within 12 months following the date of enactment of this Act, 

the Secretary, with full and active participation of the bison producing tribes, shall transmit a 

::cport to Congress identifying the existing and propos.ed facilities comprising the Indi an Bison 

Program and the Native American Bison Refuge , and construction, maintenance and 

tchahilitation needs of the existing and proposed facil ities, and provide a plan for their 

•Jevelopmem. administration, and cost-effective operation. 

5 
88 

InterTribal Bison Cooperative 

Member Tribes 

Blackfeet 

Cheyenne River Sioux 

Choctaw Nation 

Cont. Salish & Kootenai 

Covelo Indian Community 

Crow Creek Sioux 

Crow 

Devils Lake Sioux 

Gros-Ventre & Assiniboine 

Kalispel Tribe 

lower Brule Sioux 

Nez Perce 

Northern Arapaho 

Northern Cheyenne 

Oglala Sioux 

Oneida Nation 

Picuris Pueblo 

Santee Sioux 

Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux 

Southern Ute 

Shoshone-Bannock 

Standing Rock Sioux 

Taos Pueblo 

Ute 

Winnebago of Nebraska 

Yankton Sioux 
89 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Let me start with Chief Heath or Mr. Arnett. 

You have suggested that the tribe should have the discretion as to 

whether to transfer an Indian fish hatchery over to the BIA from 

the Fish and Wildlife Service. What problems do you foresee with 

such a transfer? How would tribal consent solve this problem? 

Mr. ARNETT. Mr. Chairman, Chief Heath asked me to respond to 

that question. Our concern contained in our testimony with respect 

to that aspect, the legislation is as a result of some history we 

have. About 10 years ago, the Fish and Wildlife Service proposed 

transferring the Warm Springs National Fish Hatchery located on 

our reservation to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, but no funding was 

going to be transferred. The problem, of course, would be, then, 

that the Bureau of Indian Affairs would have to take funding for 

other programs and use it on the Fish and Wildlife Services' hatchery. That was the problem, and we objected to it, and the transfer 

didn't take place. So we would want to be able to review and scrutinize any proposed transfer to ensure that it simply wasn't a dumping of a Fish and Wildlife Service facility on the Bureau and increasing the Bureau's funding difficulties that are already severe 

in many areas. So it may well work out to the satisfaction of the 

tribe. We just simply want to be able to review it and ensure in 

our own minds that it is satisfactory and that there is not a problem with the transfer. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Now, do you think that this can be achieved 

under existing authority or should we address this in legislation? 

Mr. ARNETT. Oh, I think legislation is appropriate. Certainly to 

indicate that it is possible and in many instances desirable to 

transfer hatcheries to the Bureau of Indian Affairs or conversely to 

allow tribes to contract either with the Bureau of Indian Affairs or 

with the Fish and Wildlife Service to operate a particular hatchery. 

In our view, the key is that it is an individual tribal decision of 

how to manage and who should manage and operate a particular 

Indian fish hatchery. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Speaking of fish hatcheries, Mr. Talgo, you 

have indicated a need to establish new fish hatcheries. How would 

you use some of these fish hatchery funds? What species would you 

be developing and would you intend to harvest these fish? 

Mr. TALGO. Yes, Mr. Chairman. We have all the alternative 

warm water fish supplies. Presently, we receive ours, I think, from 

Texas, from the White Mountain, that mainly supplies, I think, 

trout, but as far as for warm fish, there is none available in the 

Southwest. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Most of the current funds, Mr. Talgo, are dedicated to tribes in the Great Lakes region and the Northwest. In 

this legislation, how can we provide a more equitable distribution 

of the fish and wildlife funds? Are there more costs related to management in the Southwest? Do you think that our region maybe 

gets shortchanged here? 

Mr. TALGO. I believe so. As the only speaker today, more representing the Southwest. I am going through all the testimony that 

is before you or mainly from Northwest and to get dollars down to 

Southwest I think it should be equal level. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Okay. Now let me ask Ms. Davis these questions. Your testimony mentions the tribe's efforts to restore fish in 
90 

the upper reaches of the Snake River basin. What species were 

there in your ancestors' time? 

Ms. DAVIS. We had of course Chinook, steelhead, coho, jack, sockeye. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Now, what are your goals with respect to the 

restoration efforts? 

Ms. DAVIS. Our goal is to get the salmon back up there. We have, 

if I may be so bold as to say, we have a disagreement I guess regarding the commercial fishery and the tribal fishery with the 

State of Idaho. They are looking more to steelhead and the commercial sports fishery whereas the tribes are looking at the restoration of the salmon. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Mainly for subsistence purpose also, right? 

Ms. DAVIS. Yes, and religious and traditional. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Right. Describe your tribe's efforts to enhance 

your tribal fish and wildlife resources? What kind of fish and wildlife are you currently managing? 

Ms. DAVIS. Otters because in the fish and wildlife subcommittee 

we have a joke about it, you know, otter this and otter that, but 

we do have an otter project that the tribe is working on. We have 

been working with the State as much as we can on the elk population behind the Dworshak reservoir up in Orofino, Idaho. 

We also have through the wildlife program an eagle project, an 

osprey project. We have a number of projects that the tribe is 

doing. Our fisheries department is doing very well. We have about 

200, I am estimating, employees in the fisheries department. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Now, do you get assistance from the BIA for 

these efforts right now? 

Ms. DAVIS. What we did was we 638ed as much as we could. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Right. What are your management goals and 

how would this legislation help you to achieve those goals? 

Ms. DAVIS. I think this legislation would be like a leap for the 

tribe in getting some of the resources, the fisheries wildlife I guess 

you would call it, back in sync with the tribe as it was many years 

before we would be up to date. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Very good. I want to ask Mr. Dupuis some 

questions because he was so generous with his time. Mr. Dupuis, 

you have discussed the importance of wild rice and other traditional wild crops to the tribes of the Great Lakes. What are the 

current management efforts of your tribe with regard to these crops 

and do you get any BIA help for these efforts? 

Mr. DUPUIS. We do get some, yes, and the government, our government, ours supports funding for natural resources and harvesting of wild rice. This year up there we had a bad crop of rice for 

some reason, the floods. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. You have a unique situation in the Minnesota 

Arrowhead region. My understanding is that the tribes have treaty 

rights and enforcement authority under the 1854 authority. Would 

this bill impact your on- and off-reservation enforcement efforts? 

Mr. DUPUIS. Yes, it would. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. How so? 
91 

Mr. DUPUIS. Right now our reservation is about 100,000 square 

acres, and we have two wardens handling ceded territory, and we 

have one on-reservation warden. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Dupuis, how about your relationship with 

the State of Minnesota? How do you coordinate enforcement efforts 

with them and with other tribes? 

Mr. DUPUIS. Well, right now in the ceded territory we are trying 

to work out an agreement, but there is cooperation. We had our 

moose feast in here; in fact, it is still going on. We do have cooperation with the State and our wardens. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Now, do you encounter any problems with your 

off-reservation treaty rights, Mr. Dupuis? 

Mr. DUPUIS. That is in court right now. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. So there are some differences, obviously? 

Mr. DUPUIS. Yes, there are the two bands. They have an agreement with the State of Minnesota. Fond du Lac did have an agreement for one year and a referendum vote turned that down by the 

people. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Now, Mr. Johnson here from my staff is a 

Chippewa, and I like to geographically understand where you are 

in relationship to where he is. I know where he is because he reminds me every day, but where are you in the context of the State 

of Minnesota? 

Mr. DUPUIS. We are 120 miles north of Minneapolis, Minnesota, 

20 miles west of Duluth, Minnesota. Our ceded territory goes all 

the way up to the Canadian border, and down to the Snake River 

south, our reservation. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Dupuis. 

Mr. Wedll, you have suggested language, as I understand it, to 

ensure that the funds from this Act can be included in the self-governanee compact. Why is that important to you? How is self-governanee working as you administer your tribe's fish and wildlife 

program? 

Mr. WEDLL. We have been an initial self-governance tribe, one of 

the first self-governance tribes in the Nation. What we have found 

is that we have expanded our ability to manage and deal with natural resource issues within the reservation. 

We initially had one staff person dealing with everything from 

law enforcement to management of all types of resources on the 

reservation, and because of the very limited funding we were receiving through the 638 contract, basically through Wildlife and 

Parks. 

Under the self-governance program, we now have a forestry program, water resource program, the natural resource management 

program, wildlife enforcement program, and we have a fisheries 

program. And as a result of the self-governance, we went from a 

budget of about $100,000 up to about $600,000 in the area of natural resources, and that significantly has improved our ability to 

manage those resources. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Now, in reading your testimony I notice that 

you mentioned the importance of natural spawning areas as opposed to hatcheries. In your judgment, are these as important as 

hatcheries? 
92 

Mr. WEDLL. In my judgment, yes. I believe that we will see in 

the next few years a change in the national policy in regard to fish 

hatcheries, in particular trying to enhance traditional or natural 

spawning areas for fish. We have actively implemented programs 

to produce spawning areas and enhance spawning areas, particularly for walleye which Mille Lacs lake is noted for. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Now, Mr. Wedll, you also, as I understand it, 

have a dispute with the State of Minnesota over the authority of 

tribal officers to carry firearms and make arrests. Is that accurate? 

Mr. WEDLL. Yes. It is somewhat lessened now, but a number of 

years ago the county sheriff's department was threatening to arrest 

tribal game wardens for carrying side arms in order to enforce natural resources. It made it very difficult for staff people because 

they never knew what their status was, and I think that this bill 

will help clarify that and support the tribal network on enforcement. Mr. RICHARDSON. Now, do you think we should address it in this 

legislation? You know, we made it clear in the Duro legislation and 

with the Indian Law Enforcement Reform Act, but do you think we 

should also stress this in this legislation? 

Mr. WEDLL. I believe it is important in the record that under the 

management plan that tribes can develop with the approval of the 

Bureau that there is the place that enforcement would be placed 

and that the Bureau's recognition of that management plan would 

then put forth the issue of enforcement authority for tribes and 

clarify that position. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. So you say we do this in the bill rather than 

in the report? 

Mr. WEDLL. I am saying that within the bill you have the establishment of the management plan, and within the language, then, 

of the record identifying that it is your understanding that tribes 

will place enforcement authority in their management plan, and 

that they then can implement enforcement through that mechanism. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. My counsel tells me we have that in there. 

Mr. WEDLL. Yes. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. You think it should be strengthened? 

Mr. WEDLL. I think it needs to be in the record that that is the 

understanding. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Now, okay, let me ask a few questions of Mr. 

Frank. Something you said interested me, Mr. Frank, and that is 

you describe your efforts to address the international management 

of salmon and other species of fish in the Northwest. That is very 

interesting to me. I agree with you. How would you propose we do 

this, and has the Federal Government helped you at all in your efforts to do this? 

Mr. FRANK. Yes, they do, and like everybody else, we have the 

638 and we always come to Congress here. We have Norm Dicks 

here, as you know in Interior Appropriations, and like all of us, we 

have to come back here to the United States Congress. Without the 

United States Congress, we would have nothing as far as managers 

of our resources. In the Northwest, the tribes-may I make a comment on our San Carlos people? 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Of course you can. 
93 

Mr. FRANK. It isn't that the pie is divided up and the Northwest 

might be more than maybe somewhere else, but the main reason 

is there just isn't enough money to go around for the tribes, all of 

the tribes. Some of the tribes have lakes and enhancement programs and a lot of other real very positive things. There are people 

going to work, training programs and education and so on. In our 

areas we have the same, but we also have the anadromous fish 

that g:oes clean out into the Aleutian Islands and beyond and 

through so many jurisdictions to come home. And we are involved 

in so much water and protection of water and just a whole lot of 

other things that relate to the anadromous salmon, but I think that 

this bill takes us down the road. It is a vehicle that we are all 

going to use effectively and use it with you and the committee to 

strengthen it. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Now, we have heard the term, Mr. Frank, "comanagement," used several times today, and we have heard the 

Department of Interior's view of co-management. What does comanaging mean to you and to the tribes of the Northwest Indian 

Fisheries Commission? Do you find yourselves working cooperatively with the Department and with the BIA? 

Mr. FRANK. Yes, the co-management with the State of Washing- ton has been working for the last seven years. After the implementation of the 1974 decision, it took that long for the State of Washington to understand what co-management meant even though the 

court said we would be co-managers along with the State of Washington, but now even the Bureau of Indian Affairs understands 

what co-management means as far as the tribes and the States and 

the local governments. The Fish and Wildlife Service has a problem, and also other 

agencies in the Federal service. We are continually educating these 

people about the trust responsibility, about co-management, the 

uniqueness of the Northwest in that particular case that made us 

co-managers with the State of Washington as far as the natural resource on the reservation and off the reservation, our usual and 

customaries, so it is so important, this bill is so important as far 

as that recognition. It seems like we have got to keep jamming it 

down their throat about the recognition of us Indian tribes as us, 

as managers, professional people. We need money, too, like any 

States or any county or anybody else, to manage our own resource. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Now, Mr. Frank, I understand that the tribes 

in the Northwest have been negotiating with the State of Washington to settle the tribal treaty rights with regard to shellfish. Is that 

right? 

Mr. FRANK. Yes, sir, and we have just had another judge assigned to the shellfish case, Judge Rafeedie from Los Angeles District, and we just took him around on a visit of all of our shellfish 

cases. There are several motions out there right now that are on 

his desk, and one of the motions, is shellfish a fish, like the U.S. versus Washington says. He ruled that it was, so that took about 

30 or 40 percent of our whole case right there on that one motion, 

and, yes, that has gone forward and it is very positive. 

Also we are on another track about trying to settle the case along 

with the State of Washington. Then we have another case where 

we manage the shellfish along with the State of Washington in our 

83-120 0 94 - 4 
94 

different areas, and we have to come to Congress to get that management money. That is not a jurisdiction problem or anything, it 

is just managing the resource along with the State of Washington. Mr. RICHARDSON. So at the same time that you are going to 

court, you are negotiating and trying to resolve this issue? 

Mr. FRANK. Yes. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Well, I commend you. I think that is the right 

way to go. 

Mr. FRANK. And I hope that we don't end up in court. We have 

got to live together, and the resource has to survive. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Thank you. Mr. Heckert, I have asked this co-management question to our 

other panelists. What does this mean to you for the tribes of the 

InterTribal Bison Cooperative? Do you find yourselves working 

with the BIA and with the Department and does co-management 

mean the same to you as it may mean to the BIA? 

Mr. HECKERT. Not at the present because the tribes that I am 

dealing with are all working within the reservation on their own 

lands and with their own resources and not in areas that may have 

been ceded or under some kind of other co-management precept. 

But we are working with the different branches of government 

such as National Park Service, BLM and other Departments in Interior for a form of technology transfer to get the expertise from the 

Federal resource managers to transfer to tribal hands so they can 

get the most current rangeland and buffalo resource management 

techniques because, as you may be aware, the Fish and Wildlife 

Service controls three Federal bison facilities and the National 

Park Service controls four. As well as working with the technology 

transfer, we are working with the National Park Service and Fish 

and Wildlife to transfer some of the surplus animals to the tribes. We are currently working and we have proposed a solution to the 

Yellowstone bison management problems that they are having 

right now-a capture and quarantine facility somewhere in the 

area of Yellowstone where the animals can be captured, quar- antined until it is determined that they are, in fact, infected with 

brucellosis or, in fact, clean and then transferred out of the park 

to tribes that need to get the animals. So under co-management 

where there is an in-common resource, the tribes for bison right 

now are not dealing with that, but there are other aspects of cooperative management where both the tribes and the other Federal 

agencies can benefit through cooperation. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Now, can you give us an update, Mr. Heckert, on the progress so far in implementing that comprehensive prairie 

management plan for the member tribes of the InterTribal Bison 

Cooperative? 

Mr. HECKERT. Right now the plan you are referring to has been 

developed by the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, and it was developed 

as an alternative to a proposed poisoning plan wherein a vast number of acres and individuals of prairie dogs would be poisoned to 

eliminate them and to supposedly better the range on the Cheyenne River Sioux Reservation. 

Basically, looking at the poisoning scheme, the managers at 

Cheyenne River had determined that the amount of money that 

was going to be spent on poisoning prairie dogs would result in an 
95 

increase in forage that was actually less than the money spent in 

poisoning the prairie dogs and it would have to be done repeatedly 

over every three or four years. So in the purest economic sense it 

was probably more appropriate just to give the tribe the money 

rather than to poison the prairie dogs because you are never going 

to get the return from the poisoning of the prairie dogs that equals 

the money spent doing it. On top of all that, it has been determined 

scientifically that prairie dogs aren't a cause of range degradation, 

they are more of an effect. So instead of pursuing a nonsolution by 

poisoning the prairie dogs, the tribe decided to take the initiative 

to go back and actually look towards the causes which were poor 

range management and poor rangeland development, again, which 

is fueled by lack of sufficient funding in both the Bureau and the 

tribal programs for rangeland management development. So they 

are presently in the first year of an ongoing project to reintroduce 

bison back to the reservation. As you may be aware, bison have significantly different grazing 

characteristics than other exotic animals such as cattle and sheep 

and swine, and coupling that with extensive and innovative water 

development, different rotational grazing over large areas of reservation lands in a way that will emulate natural grazing of a migratory hooved animal population, they are trying to emulate the 

natural system as best as possible and, by virtue of that, reduce 

the prairie dog infestation to a level that is manageable rather 

than keep bumping back and forth between poisoning and infestation. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Now, do you agree that this legislation would 

assist you in this process, or do you think it would make much difference to implementing this plan? 

Mr. HECKERT. I have about 10 years experience in fisheries and 

wildlife management both with individual Indian tribes and with 

tribal Indian natural resource organizations, and I think, for one 

thing, the bill is formally recognizing that the tribes do have the 

right and the responsibility to manage their resources and finally 

giving some government support in specific toward bison. 

We have been able to secure funding for bison management 

projects at about 10 percent of what their request has been over 

the last two years, through direct congressional appropriation, but 

there was significant confusion at the start of that as to where the 

money could be channeled through because bison didn't fit in any 

one existing program. I believe this bill, this legislation, will give the tribes a lot of latitude in managing their own natural resources and not have to provide perhaps so much documentation just for the sake of documentation to the Bureau. They can get on with what needs to be 

done under the legislation and not have to be looking for ways 

around present situations to get things done. I think it would be 

very beneficial in the whole. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. This has been a very good hearing, and we are 

going to move this legislation. You have provided the information 

we need. We appreciate the courtesy in your coming to Washington 

to testify. Have a nice trip home, and thank you for your very good, 

provocative and interesting testimony. The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:45p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

APPENDIX 

OCTOBER 8, 1993 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD 

United Sta tes Department of the Interior 

Mei.norandum 

To: Solicitor 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY 

WASH INGTON, D.C. 20240 

AUG 0 5 1993 

Fr~m: Assistant Secretary - Indian Affairs 

Subject: Request for Solicitor's Opinion, Conservation Enforcement 

Authority 

We request a Solicitor's Opinion on whether Bureau of Indian 

Aff airs Conservation Officers (CO's) and Tribal CO's are considered 

La·"' Enforcement Personnel with the authority to make arrests and 

ca~ry firearms under the Indian Law Enforcement Reform Act 

(P.L. 101-379). We further request that the opinion address the 

appli cability of 25 CFR Part 11 (Law and Order on Indian 

Reservations) and 68 BIAM (Law and Order Handbook) to Bureau and 

Tribal CO's relative to policies, procedures, standards, and 

training requirements . This request results from questions 

concerning the legal roles, duties and responsibilities that many Bu~eau and Tribal CO ' s are empowered with, and is in follow-up to an action item developed by the Conservation Enforcement Working 

Gr ·~ up (CEWG), established in December 1992 to clarify Conservation 

Enforcement (CE) related issues in the Bureau (Attachment 1). 

By way of background , the Bureau's Fish, Wildlife and Recreation (~NR) Program is 98% contracted to tribes through Public Law 

93-638. Acting independently, tribal governments throughout the 

nation have developed and implemented fish and wildlife codes, 

re;ulations and programs, governing both on and off reservation 

hu:J.ting and fishing , including CE functions. These programs 

ev lved rapidly, in the absence of established legislative 

authority and national policies, program standards, and procedures. 

This has led to confusion in contracted CE related activities such as the commissioning of tribal CO ' s as Deputy Special Officers 

(DSO's), and unc l ear policy relative to training requirements and 

the purchase a nd carryi ng of firearms . Guidelines, policies, 

standards and procedures covering CE related functions and programs 

are largely absent from FWR Program authorities (25 CFR 

Su:>chapter J - Fish and Wildlife; 56 BIAM - Fish, Wildlife and Re~reation). 

Tribal CO's completing the 13-week Basic Police Training at the 

Indian Police Academy are generally not considered law enforcement 

officers. Consequently, contracting officers do not typically 

authorize the purchase of fire a rms through Wildlife and Parks 

P.L. 93 -638 contracts, and Area Special Officers have not certified 

(97) 
98 

- 2 -

f i rearm qualificati ons and in-servi ce training , or issued DSO 

commissions. In an effort to address the unique training needs of 

CO's, a new 12-week CE Training Curriculum (see Attachment l ) is 

scheduled to be held at the Indian Police Academy beginning in 

January 1994. Clarification of law enforcement authority relative 

to CO's is central to this training. 

Mr. Neil McDonald of your office , who attended the last CEWG 

meeting, and is aware of the issues, has been provided with 

relevant background materials and references. Questions concerning 

this request may be addressed to Mr. Patrick Hayes , Director, 

Office of Trust Responsibilities (208-5831 ) , or to Mr. Ted Ouasula , 

Chief, Law Enforcement Services (208-5786). 

Your prompt attention to this request is appreciated. 
99 

BRIEFING PAPER 

!Qpic: Conservation Enforcement (CE) - Bureau Responsibilities 

Prepared For/On: Conservation Enforcement Update I July 30, 1993 

States/Tribes: Approx . 200 fish and wildlife resource tribes 

BACKGROUND: The enforcement of fish and wildlife codes, ordinances 

and regulations governing member and non-member use on-reservation, 

and. the exercise of Indian hunting, fishing and gathering rights in 

off-reservation settings recently reaffirmed by the courts, has 

evolved so quickly and independently in recent years that the 

Bureau has failed to develop authorities and appropriate policies, 

standards and procedures to effectively manage and administer 

ass oc i ated programs. This has led to confusion in conservation 

enforcement (CE) related activities such as the commissioning of 

tribal conservation officers as Deputy Special Officers, and has 

resulted in the absence of a Bureau organizational structure and 

chain of command, a lack of clear training requirements, and 

unclear policy relating to the purchasing and c2rrying of firearms 

by wardens and CE officers. 

Ov"r the last five years, attempts by personnel of the Office of 

Trust Responsibilities and the Office of Law Enforcement Services 

to clarify and define Bureau roles and responsibilities for CE have 

made little headway. Consequently, the Director, Office of Trust 

Re,;ponsibilities, established a CE Working Group in December 1992 

to draft conservation enforcement policies, standards and training 

r equirements for review by Bureau officials. The first meeting of 

thn Working Group held in March 1993 resulted in a list of key 

action i terns, including the formal request of a Solicitor's Opinion on CE related authorities. A new 12-week CE training curriculum 

scheduled to begin at the Indian Police Academy in Artesia, New 

MeJCico in January 1994 is also nearing completion. 

A provision of the draft Indian Fish and Wildlife Resourc e Manage- ment Act of 1993 providing authority for aCE Program in the Bureau 

ha,; re ceived much criticism from the tribes, and may not b e included in the bill scheduled for introduction in August 199 3. Consequ•~ntly, a Solicit or's Opinion addressing questions concerning CE 

related authority, operations and personnel, is in order . 

BUREAU ACTION: Suppo rt the efforts of the CE Working Group, comprised of representatives from the Office of Trust Responsibi l ities 

and the Offi ce of Law Enforcement Services, to clarify CE related 

roles, responsibilities and authorities, and to i ni tiate a new CE 

training program at the Indian Police Academy. Request a Solicitor's Opinion c larifying CE related authorities, and be prepared t o provide associated policy guidance and direction. 

CONTACT: Gary Ranke! ; BI A Fish & Wildlife; MS - 4559-MIB; 208-4088 
100 

State of Wisconsin I DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 

Ceoroc E. Msyer 

s.c,...t.vy 

101 South Web.1W 6tr&et 

llo:ot 7g2, 

Madi&orc. W•con~in 53707 

TB..9KONE 608-26~2&21 

Tn£'FAX 608-287-3579 

TOD 808-207·0897 

Post-h""' brar\d fax trM~mittal memo '7'67'1 \' ot p:ape • 3 October 22, 1993 .. '""" 70~ hJ:ebauP! 

The Honorab l e lHlli.sm p_i ch :..rd~ n c. Co. WI .PIJR, Chair, House Subcommittee on 

Na tive American Affairs 

O.pt. ""·~~: ~ "~- s-1:'13 

1522 Longvorch Hou:J c Offi c e Buildir.g 

lla9hington, D.C . 20515 

"''~o,:l-;1.~&- 3S'S'~ 

SUBJECT: H.R. 2874 - Indian Fish and Wildlife Resource: 

Er1hancement Act o f 1993 

De ar Chairman Richardson; 

.... 

Thank you very much for tho oppo rt:u n ity to r:-.nmm~_nr-_ to your committe e on H.R. 

28 74 , the Indian Fish and WilC.life Resource Enhancement Act of 1993 . 

This agency ha:3 C:lt:n.blich9d 3 r g.c: p &c t.fu l . gr:>VQrnmPnt: t:o eovernrnent: 

relat.ionship ....,ith l.lisconsi n Indian Tr ibes t."e recognize the tre aty and 

r e s e rved rights of Wi scons in tribes, i ncludi ng t h e rights of \Jisconsin t r ibe s 

co ma n age nsturul rcc u~c ~;u: l..'i ~:h n th~ir j uri,.;.rli r.r ~ em 

As you ar e. l ikely aware , t he pe r iod of 1983 ·1991 was a ve r y controv ersin.l one 

wi thi n t:h e Scst:c of Ui c conc: i n as; tha t?-se- v~,;~d u .<;l lfTliCt:\Jriry hunting and fis h i ng 

r i gh ts of the six Wisconsin hip a Tr ibe s "'e re defined through li igat~ n 

and negotiation. The great major ity of t he ultimate definit ion of these 

r ight.s wa3 accompli!thcd thro u ,;h gov arrunQnr tC" g nvP.TnmP.nt: n egotia tions between 

t h e t.ribes and the state . At its conclus ion, all gov e r runen t.s mutually de cided 

n ot to app€al the federal Di stri ct Court Fi na l Judgement defining th e 

J,: c~p ect:ive right:s of !>t:a.to .:1nd ib.::~ l v~rnm~nt~ rm !":h~ u.c: Q and mana&omen t of 

na tural resources on the Chippe'l."a c eded l snds covering 'the northern one ·th ird 

o f iJisconsin. Besides this n ego tiation process, this agE:ncy , in active 

co m.:~.t:L wit:h other laY e nforceme nt .:1g on c iGs of t:.he statli', w ... . <~: in t:hP. f o r efront. 

of protecting :ribal me!llbers engage d in the e:..;.ercise of their ceded l a nds 

hunt ing and fishing rights . 

H.R. 28 74 sLates a general pu-rpos e of impr oving the capacity of Indian Tribes 

to ma nage fish and wi l dlife. Th is is a s;ener.'ll ,goal which this agency 

s t:r ongl y ;;; u. pport.5 . ~i thin ~i :~eo ::: in "-"8 h.;,v Q i n t:he p.::to:; t prov1 rlAd tech n i ca l 

a nd f i nancial assist anc e to t ribe s to ac c omp l i sh t hese impot"tan t: goals a nd in 

f act are i n d i scus s ion s wi th cert a i n tribe s cur r en tly to e xpand t h e se ffor s. 

Unf o rt::unately, H.R. 2874 goes too far a nd t h rough explicit and i mp lic it me a ns 

expands t h e jur i sdic tion of t:ribe s to manage na tural r e sources and thereby 

d 1m1 n 1sh t.lt~ Co nstituti onally r c:::c rved right£ of s: ~t .. __ c:_c;u c.h as W" i scons i n to 

manage the ir natural r esources . Fed e r a l l e gislati o:-t s uch a s H.R. 2874 needs 
101 

co be delicately drafted to properly procect tribal rights, jurisdiction and 

auc.hority and state right:s, juri.sttietio:l .ana authoril...y . Diminishini; 3t:cec 

author:~ty shoul d be creaced with the sarr.e disdain as the abroga<ion of tribal 

ril':hts. 

Specifically in Wisconsin, the federal courcs have defined the Chippewa ceded 

land ;ufruc~uary r i ghts to hunt. fish and ga ther . The federal courts have 

recognized the resource management right o! the ~rlbe Lv ~clf·regulaee ehe 

exercise of the usufructuary right. However. the federal court very 

explicitly s~ated in LacCour~e Oreilles ~and V . wisconsin. 707 F. Supp. 1034 

(ll. D. 'Jisc. 1989) that the Scate of ll1scons~n recain•u .. n .:>ther natural 

resource management rights in the ceded territory with a clear fiduciary 

responsibility to manage the resources in a manner protecting the Chippewa 

usufructu.ry rights. H.R . 2874 goes beyor.d the federal ~vuLL de~isions And 

authorizes the Chippewa tribes and the See~eta~f of the Interior to ~anage the 

natural resources in the Chippewa eedeC landz covering the northern one pthird of the stat::e. We request that you redraf: H.R. 26i~ 'Co cvutluu.e che e:d:st:in~ 

pattern of natural resource jurisdiction as it ~as been defined by the federal 

courts . 

~e would also ask that your subcommittee not overt~:n the limited existing 

state jurisdiction for on-reservation nat•.lr al resource management. that 

jurisd.iction ha.s been determined in ted.eral court decisions suclt 1:1S 

State of Wisconsin v. Saker 698 F. 2d 1323 (7th Cir. 1982). (navigable waters) 

and Mcntapa v . Upited States 450 U.S. 544 (1981), (navigable waters and fee· 

patented inholdings). 

1 "ould like to conclude by emphasizing that <:e strongly support H.R . 2874 in 

its efforts to strengthen tribal resource mansgemer.~ capabllitie~ . "vwever , 

we are: requesting that you modify the bill ~o remove any explicit or ambiguous 

languc~ge that would expand tribal jurisdiction ov er current state authority to 

manage: st•te resources. This is an issue ot basic fa1rness to bot.ll I...L'l.lJc:~.l and 

s~ate rights. I would just as strongly oppose this bill if it gave the ztates 

jurisdiction over tribal authori ty to rnanoge ~ribal natural resources . 

I£ "e can help you in any way in the modification of H.R. 2874, please do not 

hesitate to call (608) 266-2121. Thank you for yo"r time and efforts on this 

important: issue:. 

Sincerely , 

~ Secre•:ary 

c: ~isconsin Tribal Chairs 

IJisconsin Congressional Delegation 

Ada Deer, Assistant Sec~etary for !ndian Affai~s, Department of Interior 

Go.,ernor Thompson 

Attorney General Doyle 

~ax Peterson, International Association of Fish and wildlife Agencies .Rod Sando, Minnesota Depart:ment of !:'Jatural RQsources 

Rollie Harms , Michigan Department: of ~latural Resources 
102 

Jim Schlender , Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission 

Joe Bressette, Great Lake !nter-'!ribal Council 

Willie Molini, Nevada Fish and Wildlife Department 
103 

u~/~T~©tr~ ~DEPARTMENT OF NATURAl RESOURCES 

500 lAFAYETTE ROAD, ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 551 55·4037 OFFICE OF Tt-iE 

COMMI$5/0NER 

Oct o ber 28, 1993 

The Honorable William Richardson 

Subcorr.mittee on Native .-.merican Affairs 

1522 Longworth Houae Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Re: H.R. 2874 

Caar Conqressma.n Richardaon: 

UNII 1Nf 0nM II. f t0N 

161 2)296 €-t.Si' 

I oubmit theaa commento concorning the propooed bill H.R. 2874, titled the 

Indian Fish ancl Wildlife RBsource Enhancement Act of 1993, anct ask t hat they bo included in the written record. 

Thio loUl aeeke to improve the capacity of Indian tribes to manage fioh and 

wildlife resources within reservations and ceded territories. It aetabliahes 

a ccmpreheneive pr:ogram of federal ~tsaiatance for thia purpo se, including 

veeti.ng authority in the Secratary of the lnterior to turn over to tribe• th• 

operation of programa atf~cting Indian tieh and wildlife resources. The Stato 

o f Minnesota greea with these goals and purpoe~&~a. We are concerned, however, that the bill as draft&d is considerably broader than ie necessary to achieve them, .?.nd. haa co neequencoe: th.?.t may not be anticipated . 

The pro blem we eee wit.h the proposed H. R. . 2874 ie that it pre-empto 

eonaiderable ata.te fioh and wildlife management authority on non- Indian 

reservation lands and waters, and in ceded t&rritories. In so doinq, the bill 

legislatively overr ides a consistent. line ot court prec edents defining a t ate 

jurisdiction over reso urce management in ouch areas. In Minnesota, these 

areau compriH& many millions of ~cres, and coneequently ehe b i ll ' o impact on 

otatv managgment program• will be substantial. 

Most of the State of Minnesota. is made up of ceded territory. Lo., land that waa ceded by Indian tr ibas to the federal government in various treaties. Two 

of thesa treaties, the 1837 Treaty and 1854 Treaty, contain languaqe that 

relat~s to reserved treaty hunting and fishing priv.ilegee; these are the 

subject of current litigation. The 1837 and 1854 ceded territorieu comprise 

approximately 8 mi l lion acrae, which i• nearly 15\ of the total land area of t.hio state. In addit i o n, a aubatan't i al proporti on of the land and water l y inQ 

within the boundaries of Indian reserv•tions in Hinnsaota le puk>lic, and aubject to state resource management. jur.Ledictlon. The laogua9o of H. R. 2874 apparently expand s any axi•ting cede d territory and reservation ha'Cvoot rights 

o f tribes to inc l ud e resour c e management. juri&diction, either by the Oep art.ment of the Interior or the t.ribaa themselves, and thua p r e - empote state 

reRou rce management a u tho rity over t hese areas. 
The Honorable William Ricnardoon 

October 28, 1993 

Page 2 

104 

In so doing, H.R. 2874 •• drafted eatablishe• in federal law expansive and 

highly controversial definitions of tribal interests and jurisdiction that move far beyond what has been determined by the United States Supreme Court and the lower courts. These court decisions establish that while tribes have 

jurisdiction over their members' hunting and fiahing within reservations and 

in cGdea territories WhQre reser~ed rights exist, the atatee retain 

juri8diction o~er non-Indians hunting and fishing on non-Indian land• (and 

navigable waters) within ce&efvatione and in ceded territoriea, and over 

resource ~anagamant on such lands tor both Indiana and non-Indians alika. 

C&rtainly no court decisions ustablish the kind of tribal manag~ment authority 

in ceded territories or on other non-Indian lands that K.R. 2874 cr~atea.· 

The courte have established a balanced relationahip between Indian harvest, non-Indian harvest, and the etate responsibility to manage the ru&ourca for the benefit ot all. contrary to these judicial determlnatione, H.R. 2874 traneforma re9erved tribal harvest rlqht• on Indian land& and in cedad 

territories into a riqht to regulate non-Indian harvest on all lands within 

reservatione, and to manage natural ~eeoureee on all la~e within reeerv&tiona 

and in ceded territories to maet tribal harveiJt objectives. .Enhanced tribal resource management on Indian land~ is an objactive with which we agree, but we think it ill advia•d to ctierupt the jucticially-establiehed relationship 

between tribee and states concerninq manaqement in ceded territories and on other non-Indian lands. 

Furth~rmore, the languaQe of th~ propo1e~ b11~ may well ~otablioh tribal 

harvest riqht• in ceded territories where no auch determin•tion hae yet been made by the courts, and where eubatantial que•tione may ~xiet about the 

origlnal creation or ongoing validity of those rights. Theea questiona are the fundamental ones in treaty hunting and fishing ri9hte litigation, and •r• at the core of two active lawauits in which Minnesota ie currently involved . We are concerned that the propoGed bill might interfere with this lit-igation 

and po•sible settlement aqreQments, and with other existing agrQement• a• w&ll. At the very least, the bill should make it clear that it leaves the 

underlying question of the exi•t&nce ot reaerved huntin9 and fiahing ri9hts to the court• . 

If H.R. 2478 is indeed intended to create auch an enormous prQ-emption of state juriadiction (and re-write a good deal of court-determined Indian law in 

the process), then we certainly oppose it . We can eee no j~atification for such a law. Minnesota managa• its natural resources, both within ceded 

territoriea and without, for the benefit of all citizenu of the atate1 Indian 

and non-Indian alike. We routinely solicit and receive input from tribal 

governments concerning re•ource management. Whila we certainly have 

difference• of opinion with some tribal 9roupe concerning Indian harvest, thia 

does not affect tha way we manage the resource. 

It, «& we suspect, H.R. 2874 la not intended to create thie pr•-emption, then 

the Lanqu&Qe of the bill ehould be corrected accordin9ly. It ehould ba made_ clear that ~ribal managemen~ (and federal manag&ment on bahalf of tribea) is 

limit&d to Indian lands. and that management on non-Indian lands, whethQr 

within or without reservations or ceded territories, is the excluaivQ 

prerogative and responsibility of the at&te. 

ThG State of Minnesota has been involved in various litioation and nggotiation 

concerning reaervation and ceded territory harvest aince the mid-1960'&. We have resolved eeveral of the•e disputes with negotiated agreements. Th••• 

have enabled the bands and the state to avoid the social unrest and community 

strife that often accompany trQaty rights litigation and its outcome. 
The HonorabLe William Richardson 

October 28, 1993 

Page 3 

105 

Let me stAte aqaln that Minnesota is enthuaiaatically supportive of Indian management of natural resource~ on Indian lands, and o f federal efforts to Qnhance it. To the oxtent H.R. 2874 achieve• this objective, we support it as well. we strongly urge you to examine the bill closely, however, tor we feel ita language will have tar broader impacts. rederal pre-emption of longestabliahQd state authority and implicit recognit i on ot treaty harvest righto not validated by the ~ourte are not, we hope, what thi s bill i ntends. 

I trust this iB helpful to you. would welcome the opportuni ty for furt~er 

diacueeion or testimony conc erning thia matt•r. 

Yours truly, 

~~Rodney w. Sando Commi ssioner 
106 

GREAT LAKES INDIAN FISH & WILDLIFE COMMISSION P. 0. Box 9 • Odanah. WI 54861 • 715/ 682·6619 • FAX 715/682·9294 

MICHIGAN 

B.ay M1lb Commumty 

KcwccnawBJyCommunJty 

Lac Vieux Desert B.lnd 

• MEMBER TRIBES • 

WISCONSIN 

Bad v~r Ba nd 

L.lc. CourtcOreJl b B.-!nd 

LJcduFiambcauBand 

RedCiiffBJnJ Sr. Cr\?ox Chippewd 

Soklogon Ch 1ppewa 

Octoher 28, 1993 

The Honorable Bill Richa rdson 

Suh<.:ommittee on Na tive American Affairs 

Committee on Natural Resources 

United Stales House of Re presentatives 

1522 Longworth Ho use Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

MINNESOTA 

Bois forte Band 

Fond duL!c. Band 

Grand Ponage Band 

Millcl...l(s Band 

Re: Comments on H.R. 2874 - Indian Fish and Wildlife 

Resource Enhanceme nt Act 

Dea r Chairman Richardson: 

The Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission (G LJFWC) thanks yo u for 

!he oppo rtunity to provide these comme nts o n II.R. 2874 as part of the record of the 

hea ring held on Octobe r 8, 1993. 

H.R. 2R74 wo uld provide a federal statu tory mandate fo r the preservation and 

e nhancement of triba l fish, wildlife , wild pla nt a nd habitat man<:~ nt efforts. 

G LJ FWC suppo rts this initiative and the unde rlying goal of acknowledging- as a matte r 

of fCde ral law- the primacy of tribal se lf-regula tio n of treaty-pro tected resource s, ho th o n 

a nd off the reservatio n. 

H.R. 2874 would serve to impleme nt the very core of fed era l Indian policy- the 

prese rvation of historically and culturally significant activities of India n people, the 

fulfillment of federal promises made to the trihes hy treaty, the protection of significa nt 

Ind ian eco nomic activity, the enhanceme nt of se lt·~government by the tribes, the 

e ncouragement of governme nt-to-gove rnme nt dt:!a lings ht:tween trihes, states, and the 

fede ra l governme nt, a nd the promotio n of educa tio na l opportunities fo r Indian people. 

In drafting H.R. 2874, the Subcommittee clearly paid close atte ntion to tribal 

comments provided as part of the February 18, 1993 oversight hearings regarding Indian 

natura l resource manageme nt and enhance me nt issues. GLIFWC a ppreciates the 
The Honorable Bill Richardson 

October 22, 1993 

Page 2 

107 

Subcommittee's sensitivity and responsiveness to tribal concerns. Our comments are 

offered in a spirit of working with the Subcommittee and its staff to refine specific details 

and language as this measure proceeds through the legislative process. 

I. GLIFWC'S MEMBERSHIP AND PURPOSE 

GLIFWC is compromised of 13 federally recognized trihes in Wisconsin, 

Minnesota and Michigan.Ji Each of GLIFWC's member tribes entered into one or more 

treaties with the United States, under which the tribes reserved off-reservation hunting, 

fishing and gathering rights in lands ceded to the United States. These rights have been 

recognized by the courts, including the multifaceted Lac Oreilles v. State of Wisconsin 11 

litigation, which is sometimes known as the Voigt case. 

GLIFWC provided oral and written testimony at the Subcommittee's February 18 

oversight hearings. We ask that this testimony be incorporated by reference into these 

comments for the purpose of providing more detailed information on GLIFWC's offreservation natural resource management program, co-management activities and 

educational opportunities for tribal members. 

As our previous testimony documents, GLIFWC is an intertribal organization 

exercising delegated tribal authority in providing a broad range of biological, 

management and other expertise to its member tribes. It was established hy the tribes to 

protect and regulate the use of their off-reservation natural resources. It serves its 

member tribes by conserving and managing off-reservation fish, wildlife and other 

resources, helping tribes in the development and enhancement of institutions for tribal 

self-regulation of natural resources, and protecting the habitats and ecosystems that 

support those resources. 

1/ GLIFWC's member tribes are: Wisconsin- Bad River Band of the Lake Superior 

Tribe of Chippewa Indians, Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, 

Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, St. Croix Chippewa 

Indians of Wisconsin, Sokaogan Chippewa of the Mole Lake Band, and Red Cliff Band 

of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians; Minnesota - Fond du Lac Band of Chippewa 

Indians, Grand Portage Chippewa Tribe, Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians and Bois 

Forte Chippewa Tribes; and Michigan - Bay Mills Indian Community, Keweenaw Bay 

Indian Community, and Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians. 

Y S~. u. Lac Courte Oreilles v. Voigt (LCO I), 700 F. 2d 341 (7th cir. 1983), cert. 

denied 464 U.S. 805(1983); Lac Courte Oreilles v. State of Wisconsin (LCO X), 775 F. 

Supp. 321 (W.O. Wise. 1991)[Final Judgment in the Voigt case]; U.S. v. Brese tte, 761 F. 

Supp. 658 (W.D. Minn. 1991). 
108 

The Honorable Bill Richardson 

October 22, 1993 

Page 3 

II. COMMENTS ON H.R. 2874 

1. Section 2 Findings. This section contains a number of important findings 

regarding tribal fish and wildlife resources and management authority. Section 

2(2) properly recognizes the federal trust responsibility in this area, and 

specifically acknowledges that this trust responsibility applies to all federal 

agencies. 

The provision goes on to state that "absent a clear expression of 

congressional intent to the contrary, the United States has a duty to administer 

Federal fish and wildlife conservation laws in a manner consistent with the treaty 

rights of Indian tribes." The intent of this provision, as we understand it, is to 

provide a clear rule of statutory interpretation to guide federal agency action. 

While we strongly support such a purpose, the current language is too limited to 

accomplish this objective. For example, the language appears to apply only to the 

construction of "Federal fish and wildlife conservation laws." In our view ill! 

federal laws must be construed to avoid impairment of treaty rights and the 

diminution of tribal sovereign authority unless Congress expressly provides 

otherwise. To codify this principle - which is the teaching of the Supreme Court's 

Dion decision- we suggest the following language be included as a separate finding 

(replacing the language in section 2(2) which follows the word "department"): 

Indian fish and wildlife resources, and tribal 

management activities shall not be impaired or 

diminished by federal statute, except to the 

extent expressly provided otherwise by 

Congress. 

This language, along with the finding in section 2(3), would provide a clear 

directive to federal agencies and would likely reduce litigation between tribes and 

federal agencies. 

2. Section 5 - Indian Fish and Wildlife Management Program: 

This Section would require the Department of Interior to provide for the 

management of Indian fish and wildlife resources consistent with the SelfDetermination Act. We note the following: 
109 

The Honorable Bill Richardson 

October 22, 1993 

Page 4 

a. It is our understanding that the hill is intended to apply to tribes 

contracting under P.L. 93-638, or entering tribal self-governance compacts. 

To clarify this, we suggest that in Section 5 (and throughout H.R. 2874) the 

Self-Determination Act be cited as 25 U.S.C. § 450 et seQ. rather than as 

P.L. 93-638, and that Committee report language be included to assure tha t 

self-governance tribes are full participants under the Bill. 

b. H.R. 2874 would reinforce statutory programmatic authority for the 

Department of the Interior (Interior) to establish an "Indian Fish and 

Wildlife Resource Management Program." This authority must be seen 

within the larger framework of the bill - which is designed to promote trilllil 

management efforts. Along these lines, the Bill should stress that Congress 

does not intend Interior to create or operate a bureaucracy that diverts the 

financial resources needed for tribes to operate their own management 

programs. To ensure that unnecessary bureaucracy is avoided, the Bill 

could provide in Section 5(b) that: ''The Secretary shall efficiently 

administer this Program in a manner that maximizes the transfer of 

financial resources to tribal fish and wildlife management programs." 

c. Section 5( c) contains a broad list of tribal management activities. It would 

be helpful to add to the listed activities habitat protection and restoration 

programs, public information/public relations and natural resource progran• 

administration. These are integral parts of tribal resource management 

programs and should be expressly acknowledged as such. 

d. Section 5 (and other relevant sections) should state that "tribal 

organizations exercising properly delegated tribal authority" may develop, 

implement and operate fish and wildlife management operation programs, 

may carry out the resource management planning process and are eligible 

for Secretarial financial and technical assistance. It is our understanding 

that the Bill intends that tribal organizations exercising delegated tribal 

authority- like GLIFWC does for its member tribes in connection with the 

Voigt case - will be full participants in the activities authorized in the Bill. 

The language we propose would clarify this. 

•:. Sound natural resource management planning is a vitally important 

endeavor for tribes. As we read it, H.R. 2874 leaves a measure of 

uncertainty with respect to some of the requirements of a tribal resource 

management plan. Among other things, the Bill should make clear that 

tribes are not required to change their resource management traditions, 

methods or existing management plans to conform to the Bill's 
110 

The Honorable Bill Richardson 

October 22, 1993 

Page 5 

requirements. A provision indicating that tribes (or tribal organizations 

exercising properly delegated tribal authority) shall have broad discretion 

"in determining the tribal needs to be addressed by the plan and the scope 

and contents of the plan" would accomplish this. 

The Bill should also recognize that practical constraints may in some 

instances impede the completion of a comprehensive natural resource 

management planning process within the Bill's proposed three-year period. 

Comprehensive resource management planning is a complex undertaking 

that requires substantial funding and expertise. Tribal resource 

management authority may extend broadly to many species over a wide 

territory. For effective planning, much information must be gathered, 

priorities must be established and many decisions must be made. It may 

frequently be the case that insufficient funding and other constraints limit a 

tribe's ability to address all resources at once in the planning process. 

Rather, in many instances resources of highest priority receive immediate 

attention, leaving planning for other resources to a later time. Given these 

practicalities, a tribe should not he penalized or adversely affected for not 

meeting the three year planning deadline, especially for factors beyond a 

tribe's control. 

3. Section 7 Tribal Fish Hatchezy Pro~ram. This section authorizes the Secretary to 

establish and administer an Indian Fish Hatchery Program "to assist Indian tribes 

to develop tribal hatcheries and enhance fish resources on the reservation." While 

Gi.JFWC supports such a provision, we note that several of GLIFWC's member 

tribes stock fish from tribal hatcheries in off-reservation waters within ceded 

territories as part of their fishery enhancement program. GLIFWC therefore 

recommends deleting the words "on the reservation" from the end of section ?(a). 

GLIFWC applauds the Subcommittee's vision as reflected in H.R. 2874. We 

support the development of legislation to provide strong statutory support for tribal fish 

and wildlife management programs. GLJFWC and its staff stand ready to assist the 

Subcommittee in any way we can. 

wrp!&•\glifv.·c!:r 

Very truly yours, 

Is/ James H. Schlender 

James H. Schlender 

Executive Administrator 
111 

TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL T. PABLO, TRIBAL CHAIRMAN 

OF THE CONFEDERATED SALISH AND KOOTENAI TRIBES 

OF THE FLATHEAD NATION 

ON THE PROPOSED 

H.R. 2874 

THE INDIAN FI SH AND WILDLIFE RES OURCE 

ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 1993 

OCTOBER 1993 
112 

!'h'-' '2onfederated Sal ish and Kootenai Tribes o f the 

f'lathead Nation have reviewed the draft legislation ent i tled 

the lndian Fish and \Vildli fe Re source Enhan c ement Act of 

1 99 3 . We suppor t in concept l egislation tha t provides fish 

and wildlife resource management opportuni ties f or Indian 

<::-i '.:l<'S . However , He wish to express several c oncerns that we 

lie<._.,, ·,Ji.r;h t h is l egislation and prov ide suggestions for 

TLe ?li'tthead India n Rese r vat ion is the 1 . 2 millio n acre 

il'''!1 C• o f the Con f edcrated sal ish and Kootenai Tribes . This 

P ''~'"":·,rat ion •.-1<1 s created in 1855 v1ith the signing o f the 

Hel.1·;<it e 'T'reaty , v;hich r eserved to our Tribes the exclusive 

!.-ig:-; t. r.~~ hunt and fish 1dithir.. the exterior boundar ies of this 

;c_.,,,,,, ... J;~( on . Hcmting and fishing rights •,;ere also reserved 

in ~;.>o!.-igi.na ] and cede d t erritory outside our Re servation 

~h e Flathead Reservation contains nearly 70,000 acres o f 

ak~s •nd over 40 0 miles of streams which are open to fishing 

by· T:·J.:·;-';1 and non -Tribal peopl e. Host of the Rese r vat i on's 

Tr'.i·;.,.L l<:nds (633 , 651 acres} a l ong <Jith the state and f edera l 

la;;.2 (6~ 703 ac r es), are a lso open to non -Tribal b i rd 

:,,,,,: en;. Fishing and bird hunting by non -Tr iba l people on 

::he Peselvation is regulated under a joint agreement b etween 

the 'PL '.bes a nd the State of Nontana. Under this agreement, a 

JO."irE i"'ecreation Permit is requ ired for non -Tri bal peopl e to 

~~cr ItC wi t hin t he exterior boundaries of the Reservation. 

S·~a ", m,:,.L ;;nd thr e e-day Recr ea t:ion Permi ts , as well as fishing 

a,Jd h' .lfl t.~n:; s tanq;;s, are available for p urchase. During 1992, 

21,( ~1 various types of Tribal recreationa l permits and 

s;_ arm:;s were purchased and the Tribes spent over $1.1 mi llion 

prot•·.'CI:ing and manuging fish 1:Jildlife and rec reation 

~csou rc~s on the Rcservatior1 . 

Hichael T. Pablo Testimony - Page 2 
113 

LEGAL CONCERNS 

•rhe purpose for which this bill was put together is of 

the highest value to Indian Country and it appears to be t\·-u 

fold. First, it provides a funding mechanism to Tribes sc 

that they themselves can more readily engage in mana\rement c; 

natural resources central to their lives and their existenc~. 

If done properly this could put Tribes on a footing similac 

to that of states that obtain federal funding for wildlife 

management. The second function of the bill provides 

educational assistance to qualified Tribal people to furth·:·: 

their studies in fish and wildlife management and associat2d 

fields. 

•rhe purposes of the Bill are adrnirable. Addit.ior.ally 

as th•~ bill itself attests, the purposes when properly 

applied would bolster the trust responsibi1itles of the 

united States government. However, we detect a defici<:ncy '' 

Section 13 of the bill. There is no identified source or 

amouno: of funding to implement the purposes of the bi~l. \·:e 

stress the need to not take away from exiscinq Tribal 

programs--don't rob Peter to pay Paul . 

rhe first principle legal problem we s e e with the bil 2 

in its present form is the random use of similar, though not 

identical, words and phrases to address the scope of the i.nli 

and tie nature of the Tribal interests to be protected. By 

definition the bill is to deal with fish and wildlife issuec. 

Accordingly, the most evident inconsistent terminology lies 

in t~{ing to define those resources. There are at least 

seven different terminologys used to define Tribal fish and 

wildlife resources. For example: 

1) the term "Indian fish and wildlife resources• 

appea:~s in Section 2 (2) and elsewhere; 

21 the term •fish and >·tildlife resource" appears in 

Section 2(41 and elsewhere; 

3) the term •tribal resource management activities" 

appears in Section 2(31 and elsewhere; 

Michael T. Pablo Testimony - Page 3 
114 

1) the term " Indian hunt i ng and fishing activi ties" 

app~3rs in Sect i on 2(6) and elsewhere; 

5) the term " tribal fis h and wildlife resources" 

app sars in Se ction 2(6) and elsewhere; 

() the term " Indian hunting , fishing and gatheri ng 

rights" appears in Section 3111. 

Another good exampl e of this inconsistency appears in 

Sec•.i.on Sia l, which provides that the Secretary shall provide 

fo1· ~t1e management of, variously, 

1) "Indian fish and wi l dlife resources ", 

2) "fish and wildlife resou r ces", 

3) " Indian hunting, fishing and gathering rights, and 

4) ·· certain fish and t·Jild l i fe resources· . 

Cn ly one o f those terms is defined . The t erm "Indian 

and wildlife r esources " is de fined at Se ction 4161. 

of the oth er terms are defined. However , for example, on 

three of the bill the terms "Indian hunting and fishing 

ac:::iv ities ", "tribal fish and VJildlife resources", "fish and 

.,,;ldlif'" resources", " Indian fish and toJildlife resources " and 

"Indian hunting and fishing ga thering rights " all appear in 

t empting to address roughly the same s ubstance. The 

potent ial for confusion is quite high and is easily dealt 

~ith . Stick to one term and define it to include all fish 

and wild life in VJh i ch Tribes have a protectable inter est . 

\-larking from the premise that the purpose of this bill 

1s to enhance as fu lly as possibl e the role of Triba l 

"' " l.d Lcfe manogemcnt activit i e s throughout Indian country a nd 

ceded , as well as aborig inal territories, the bill should 

fcJcns on the broadest definitional term and consistently use 

tha•. terminology ra ther than incerchangeably use terms that 

are ill-defined . 

The second de finitiona l p r oblem lies i n geographic 

lim1tations of the scope of t he bi ll. Three separat e phras es 

are us~d to describe the geographic al reach of the bill. In 

sEveral Sections, notably Section 2, subparagraph 4, Section 

Hlchael T. Pabl o Tes t imony - Page 4 
115 

9(f) and Secti on 9(a) 3 the term "Indian lands" appears as 

the geographic l imitation of the reach o f the bill. " Indian 

l ands" is very narrowly defined in Sect ion 4, subparagraph 8 

as only lands held in trust status or subject to restrictions 

against a l ienati on. By definition that excludes Indi an-owned 

lands in fee status. On the Flathead Reservation, Indianowned fee title lands are in the neighborhood of 70,000 

acres. The term "Indian country", as defined at 18 U.S .C. 

1151, covers all lands within Res ervation boundaries and 

could be more appropri ate fo r Reservati on -wide application . 

hn add i t i onal aspect of the geographi c reach of the b ill 

addre=.ses the r o l e of Tribes in "treaty-ceded territory" in 

Section 2(4) . By using the term " treaty-ceded territory ", 

the bill exc l udes those tracts of Tribal historical lands 

that are aboriginal territory which the Tribes have never 

ceded. In the case of the Fla thead Nation, abo rigina l 

territory constitutes a tremendous area of land upon which 

the Tribes have very clear and protectable treaty - based 

right £> to hunt and fish, but tha t would be excluded by 

failure to include that term "aboriginal territories" in the 

bill. 

There is no need to place any geographic parameters on 

the bi l l since it does not purport to se r ve a regulatory 

funct ion. Since the b i ll is basical ly a funding mechanism, 

there is simply no need to define the jurisdictional or 

geographic reach of Tr ibal governments . Unde r its t r ust 

r esponsibi lities, the United States has the obligation to 

provide funding for such Tribal programs and it will do ~o 

whether or not the bi l l contains t he terms "Indian country ", 

"ceded Tribal territory " or "aboriginal l ands ". A reluctance 

in having such jurisdictional terms included i n any Indian 

l egislation is becoming more and more substantiated as time 

goes ::Jy. The s everal opinions in the Brendale case , as well 

as i n the recent Bourland decisi on on the scope o f Triba l 

authority on certain reservation lands that may not be in 

t rust status, provide the impetus for such caution . 

Mi chael T. Pablo Test imony - Page 5 
116 

'l'hC central legal concern of the Tribes goes to what 

could be interpreted as an effort by the federal government 

to preempt the field of fish and wildlife regulation in the 

lndL1n ar·ena. The entirety of Section 5 could be read as 

cc;~st:ituting a federal preemption of Tribal authorities 

,.;it!:in reservation boundaries and within whatever other 

geogr;:q;,hic reach this bill purports to extend. One 

intc•cpretation of Section 5 (e) (1) is that whether or not a 

Tr1be itself wants to engage in a management plan, the 

SfCCreLary of Interior "shall" do so. 

'I'he bill provides that "to meet the management 

obje::tives set forth", an Indian fish and wildlife resource 

m~n?gement plan shall be developed and implemented". The 

bill next provides that a Tribe may, under P.L. 93-638 

provisions, contract to engage in that management activity. 

:::::·.-'PVer, under Section 5 (e) (B) , if a Tribe chooses not to 

<e-.-;'ltract the development or implementation "the Secretary 

sha\.1 develop or implement a plan". The Secretary, under 

Sec:.j_on 5 (e) (C) will be mandated to address many internal 

'"'riba .i. considerations and decide them in the absence of the 

Tribes, should the Tribes decide not to do so formally. For 

:;xanr . .l e, under Section 5 (e) (C) , the Secretary is empowered to 

"identify specific Tribal fish and wildlife resources goals 

and objectives" (Section 5(e)(C)(iii). That is wholly an 

inten:wl Tribal function and the bill would empower the 

Secretary of Interior to do that despite the wishes of the 

Tribe. 

A similar criticism arises out of Section 5(e) (C) (iv) 

,.,,,_._ch •·Jculd empower (in fact would mandate), in the absence 

ot t.he Tribes, the Secretary to "define critical values of 

t'1e Indian Tribe and its members" regarding fish and game 

;r,arugPment. If ever there was an internal Tribal function- -

t:~hat i.s it. The bill would mandate the Secretary of Interior 

to ~rPempt Tribal sovereign powers. 

Finally, under the Secretarial mandate the entire 

process shall be completed within three years. (Section 

Michael T. Pablo Testimony - Page 6 
117 

S(e) (C) (viill. Section 5 improperly usurps the authority of 

a Tribe to engage, define and address its own critical values 

in the fish and wildl ife arena. We cannot support this 

portion of the bill. 

Under the provisions of Sec. Sb (1) the Tribes are 

concerned that the Indian Fish and Wildlife Resource 

Management Program could be a new BIA program which will 

utilize funding that might otherwise go to Tribal managemen t 

efforts. We suggest instead that much of the direction for 

for ttis effort be derived by creat ion of regional advisory 

groups consisting of Tribal fish and wildlife managers and 

enforcement personnel selected from applicants from tribes 

with experienced professional staffs. Funds to cover their 

participation costs, as well as travel and other expenses 

would be made availabl e under the Act to allow for a sharing 

of expertise. 

~:his legislation can be a very important tool by which 

Indian Tribes can substantially improve the management of 

fish, wildlife and habitat resources on their reservations. 

However , the l anguage wi thin the bi ll about which we have 

expressed concerns could pose future problems for tribes 

attempting to improve their management capabilities. We ask 

that serious consideration be given to these concerns and 

that they be addressed in amendments to the l eg islation. 

'rhe Confederated Salish and Kootenai.Tribes sincerely 

appre c iate the opportunity to provide the written testimony 

of the contents of this legislation. We r equest that this 

t estinony be included in the record for this legislation. 

As with the earlier Senate e fforts at developing a bill 

to support Tribal fish and wildlife, the intent is laudable. 

However, just as in the Senate efforts, this bill simply 

misses the mark. What Tribes need is an identified, solid 

and substantive source of direct federal f unding that doe sn ' t 

adversely impact existing Tri bal funds. The Dingell-Johnson, 

Pittman-Robertson and related acts supply simple and direct 

sources of funding. Tribal access to those or similar fund s 

Michael T. Pablo Testimony - Page 7 
118 

provide a solid funding source which avoids the need to 

address geographic jurisdictional constraints on Tribal 

regulatory authority. 

Michael T. Pablo Testimony - Page 8 
Mr. Steven S:~e.ley 

119 

Department of ~tur.U Resources 

Crow Creek Sioux Tribe 

P .0. Box 30, Fort Thocpson. South DakoY 57339 

Telepho:te: (605) 2~2221 

Oct.ober 5, 1993 

Deputy Cow:tcil on Indi&~. A.ffetirs 

tii'"asb.ington, D.C~ 

Tha Crow Creek Sioux Tribe:. of South Dzlc.oca would lLl.te t:o take ~ ~o:!leilt to reo::.!.~ci 

you of the i.m.port:ance of the proposed le.gislatio:! kno'*'-n as the lnci iao F:.sh and 'Wildlife 

Resourc~ M"anageme.nt Act: of 1993 . 

!here are :10t stroug enough t.:ords co express the izl?ort.!.!!.c.e of ::his .!.ct :o !ndia.n pe ople 

throughout the Uc.ited St:ates. Tribe$ sucb. as ou=s b.ave bee:J. struggli!lg fer years t o be 

1ndepe:1de.nc a.od self goverui:lg over our oliii"U reservations. This 3111 ?reseilts a chance 

for Ttibes to G.cqui..re the resources tz.ecessary to prope~ly ope!:"e.ce. Wi ldlife anci Fish.aries 

Proir2ms oo. <:he level of othe= Stat:e and ?ederal Agencies. 

The Crow Creek Sioux Tribe would like. t o ttz?ress its suppo!:t of til.is Bill. The l anguage 

directed tow-ard Fisheries md 3 isoo. is r;e:ry eu.couragiztg, as bo~h are of grea t importc.r.c;e 

tO oc::· Tribes. · 

A.t the: same time 'Q'ild..1ife hol.ds a.$ ouch Ol:: i:ilore imoo:rt2.l:!c~ co Ot!r G:re.a:: ?lains Tr-:..be ailC. 

we fee:l the l..angu.age is t oo vazue. to prodc.ce t,ro.ly" gre2.t. adva!!ces ~ OUT: Wildlife 

taan.agE:In~i-D.t programs. We -;woul.d like. to see st;r;c;mg~ r language addressi :tg the w-ildlife 

aspect: of f.his blll a.n.d request your otSsisu::nce in cioing so . · 

Thank you for your time md e.ousider;:!..tion i.J:: this -mitt:ter. 

Siu.c.e~el , 

TOilYV:::) c .. c.s.T. Biologist 

~~~ Duarte Dig Eagle-chairm~n 

Crov Crsek Sioc..-..: Tribe. 
120 

\ndian Tribe Of 

tvi.s C'o IJ~. ~~ Keshena, Wisconsin 541 35 Telephone 

1-715-799-3341 

TESTIMONY OF THE 

MENOMINEE INDIAN TRI3E OF WI SCONS I N 

TO THE 

HOUSE NATIVE Al'!ERICAN AFFAIRS SUBCOMMI'f'TEE 

REGARDI NG 

H. R. 2874, 

THE NDI.~~ FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCE ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 1993 

October 22, 1993 

The Menominee Ir ian Tribe of Wi sconsin would like t o e xpress 

our t hanks to Chairman Richar dson and Congressman Thomas for the ir 

lead ership in i ntroducing H.R. 2874, the Indian Fish and Wildlife 

Resource Enhancement Act of 1 993 . We also t han k the Native 

American Affairs Subcommit~ee for the oppor tuni t y to submit o u r 

comments on thi s i mport a nt legislation wh ich would e s tablish a 

solid s t atutory basis for t r i bal fi s h and wildli f e programs . 

The Menominee Indian Reservation consists of 360 square miles 

of most ly wi lderness terra i n, with 80 l akes and more than 300 

miles of riv ers and streams. Despite attempts by the feder~l 

government mo r e than 1 5 0 y ears ago to move o ur p eop le from o ur 

land, t h e Me nominee re fus ed to be uprooted f rom our reg i on o f 

for e sts and t he clear waters of the Wolf Ri ver and i t s 

tributaries. Unli ke many other tribal homela nds o r reser vat ions, 

Menominee lands were never allotted. Today, o ur reservation 

rema ins one o f t he large st tracts of unchec kerboarded Indian l ands 

in the nat ion. It i s rich i n f ish, wi ldlife, and plants necessary 

to carry on tribal cultural prac ti ceS that p rovide f or much o f t he 

material needs of our peop le . 

The Menominee Tribe establ ished its Conservation Department 

in 1 978 wi th funding und er the BIA Rights Protection Progr am. The 

Departmen t p rovi des enforcement for the Tribe ' s na tural r esources 

and t ribal / fed eral trespass laws . Conserva t i on and e nfor cement 

efforts are done in a coordinated and c ooper ative manner wi th 

state and federal agenci es. Tribal act i v ities enhance the overall 

efforts of both sta te and f ederal agencies . 

I n FY19 91 t h e Tribe expanded t h e Department ' s efforts into 

area s of f ish and wildlif e management by h iring a Fis h and 

Wi l dlife Biologist / Manager. This person is charged with 

devel op ing the Tribe ' s fish, wi ldlife, parks and r ecreation 

program. His du ties include manag ing four one-acre f ish rear i n g 

ponds, the Circle of Flight wet lands proj ect, and n oxi ous weed 
121 

central ; conduct~~g environmental assessments; and co-managing 

fish and wildli: e activities witr. t~e Wisconsin Department of 

Natural Resources. In FY1992 the Conservation Department 

oatrolled a total of more than 98,500 miles . In some 35C 

ir:.cidents, the Department issued 49 '"arnings and 81 citations, and 

responded to 36 complaints . The Department also s~ocked almost 

t·.·o million fish a:1d responded to beaver overpopulation by 

harvesting 87 ani!nals. 

GE:NERAL COMMENTS 

In general, the Menominee Tribe supports the intent of the 

Ir.dian Fish and Woldl i fe Resource Enhancement Act. We believe 

that this legislation reflects responsiveness of the Subcommittee 

to tribes at the Subcommittee ' s hearing earlier this year, and 

SLbsequent comments and suggestions made by tribes. We appreciate 

the bill 's emphasis on tribal governmental authority for resource 

management and enforcement, rather than placing the emphasis on 

the Bureau of Indian Affairs. This tribal authority is 

appropriately recognized in the bill's provisions f or tribes to 

contract for Interior fish and wildl i fe programs administered by 

the Secretary, and financ ial and technical assistance being 

authorized to tribes for evaluating tribal codes and regulations, 

conservation needs and resource conditions. 

SPECIFIC COMMENTS 

For the Subcommittee's consideration , we offer several 

conunents on certain provisions of the proposed bill and some 

suggestions for changes in the wording of the bill. 

Se!Ct ion 2 - Findings . 

We note in general that the Menominee Tribe appreciates the 

intentional drafting of H.R . 2874 to recognize and affirm the 

government-to-government relationship between tribes and the 

fE!deral government, treaty rights of the tribes, and the trust 

rE>sponsibility and rights protection responsibilities of the 

fE!deral government. Thes e Findings set f orth the underpinnings of 

a statutory basis for tribal f ish and wildlife programs. 

We do note, however, that the proposed legislation does not 

address the issue of tribal regulation of non-Indian use of 

natural resources on lands within t he boundaries of a r eservation 

(except for the statement in Finding (5) that "Indian tribes have 

jurisdiction over Indian and non-Indian hunting and fishing 

activities on Ind:..an reservations . . . "). Only a few pieces of 

land within the Menominee Reservation are owned by non-Indians, 

and, during the winter, spring and fall months, the reservation is 

mostly closed to non-tribal members. The summer months, however, 

SE~e a large influx of non-Indians onto our tribal lands, seeking 

to take advantage of f i shing and other recreational opportunities . 

This number of non-Indi an resource users during the s ummer months 

far outnumbers permanent residents. While the Menominee Tribe 

manages the lakes of our reservation, we receive no compensation 

from non-tribal members through licens es or other fees. We 
122 

believe that t~ e bil l should be more explicit :r. the way that it 

addresses the is s~e o: tribal regula ~ory :uris ti n e~ nonIndians. 

Paragraph (6 ) o: the Findir.gs section states that Indian 

tribes "have juri sdiction over Indian a~d non-Indian hunting and 

fishing activ=.ties or ..Indian reservations," bu~ this paragraph 

does not explicitly acknowledge t ribal civil ~egulatory 

juri sdiction over non- Ind ian s on private ly owned l a nds within 

reserv ation b oundaries. The U. S . Supreme Cour s r e cent decisi o n 

in South Dako ta v . Bourl and , No. 91 - 2051 ~une 14, 1993 ) , and its 

earlier decision in Montana v . Uni t ed States, 450 U.S. 544 (1981), 

hold that triba l reg~latory authority over non-Indians on 

privately owned l ands with~n reservation boundaries can be 

sustained in instances in which a tribe asserts such authority in order to control conc~ct that "threatens or has some direct effect 

on the politica: integrity, the economic security, or health or 

welfare of the t ribe." 450 U.S. at 566 . Hunti:1g and fishing by 

non-Indians on fe e l ands , and othe r kinds of c onduct that damage 

fish and wildlife h abitat , may h a v e such e:fect s , especially in 

instances in wr.i c h the fish ar.d wildlife populations at issue have 

cultural and economic importance for the tribe. ~ince this is the 

test that the Supreme Court has laid do•Nn for a tribe to assert 

civil regulatory jurisdiction over non- Indians on fee lands as an 

aspect of inherent sovereignty, the Subcommitte e should consider a 

finding that , i n the context of fis h and wildlife, would help 

tribes to meet this test . The a l ienation of Indian lands within 

reservations , whether pursuant to the allotment policy or more 

recent federal action, generally h a s not been carri ed out with any 

consideration o f the habitat values of the lands that have been 

alienated. If tribes are to be able to effectively manage 

c ulturally imp o rtant fish and wildlife resources, tribes that hav e 

fee lands withi~ their reservatio ns will need to be able to 

exercise regulat ory authority over the conduct of non-Indians. We 

recommend that the bill be revised to include a finding , either in this paragraph or at another appropriate point, that: 

"hunting and fish ing b y non - Indians o n fee lands wi thi n a 

reservati o n may significantl y a ffect a tribe's political 

integrity the econgmic security or health or welfare.'' 

In additio n, paragraph (6) o f this section should be amended 

by changing the first clause to read as follows: 

"the Unit e d States has an obli gation to provide assistance to 

Indian tribes to monitor and regulate I ndian and non- Indian 

hunting a nd f isting activities/ 

Section 3 - Purposes. 

We generally support the language used ir. this section. We 

believe, however, that the first t wo paragraphs in this section 

should be rev i sed to speak of t h e habitat o n which the fish and 

wildlife resourc es depend . Fish and wi ldlife resources cannot be 

maintained withou t land or water for habitat, and it would make 

the bill more comp rehensive in its approach t o resourc e management 
123 

if the Purposes sect~on specifically speaks of habitat. We 

recommend that :Cn both paragraph Ill and paragraph (2) of this 

section, after the word ''resources,'' the words ''and habitat'' be 

inserted. 

Section 4 - De~i~itions. 

The bill includes definitions of ''Indian land'' and ''Indian 

reservation" in paragraphs (8) and (9), respectively. The term 

''Indian land'' is defined as land that is either held in trust for 

an Indian or tribe or held by an Indian or tribe and subject to a 

restraint on alienation imposed by the United States. We question 

the need for using the term "Indian land" as a defined term. 

Indiar. fish and wildlife resources are not necessarily located on 

"Indian land" as so defined. The resources may from time to time 

be located on fee lands within reservation boundaries or on ceded 

lands outside reservation bcundaries. It appears to us that the 

term is only used in two places in the bill, both times in 

Section 9, which would establish an education program in fish and 

wildlife resource management. Parag~aphs (b) (1) and (b) (2) both 

refer to-professional employment "serving or benefiting Indian 

lands." It would make more sense for the cooperative education 

program to be established under this section to refer to 

employment in Indian fish and wildlife resource management or 

employment serving reservations. We think that the reference to 

"Indian lands" would only serve to give the BIA a rationale to 

narrow the scope of the program. Thus, we recommend that the term 

''Indian land'' be deleted from the Definitions section and that 

sorr.e other term be used in Section 9. 

If the real reason for using the term ''Indian land'' is to 

include Indian lands outside of reservation boundaries, then we 

suggest the Subcommittee look to recent statutes that have used 

definitions of similar terms that are based on the statutory 

definition of "Indian country." 18 U.S.C. § 1151. For example, 

the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 

(NAGPRA) defines the term "tribal land" as including "all lands 

within the exterior boundaries of any Indian reservation." 25 

U.S.C. § 3001(151. This definition of "tribal lands" is also used 

in the National Historic Preservation Act as amended in 1992. 

Pub. L. No. 102-575. 

In the definition of "resource maoagement activities" in 

subsection 4(12), we recommend that, after the word "resources" in 

the first sentence, the words ''and habitat'' be inserted. 

~tion - Indian Fish and Wildlife Management Program 

We strongly support provisions of the bill which would direct 

the Secretary to establish the Indian Fish and Wildlife Resource 

Management Program. In our view, Section 5 is the heart of 

H.R. 2874. The T~ibe supports the bill's stated objective of 

integrated resource management, which would take into 

consideration noc only a tribe's fish and wildlife resources, but 

forest, agricultural and other resources. 
124 

We are pleased to note that habitat restoration is included 

as a resource management activity under Section S(c) (3). We also 

s~rongly support the inclusion of the development of tribal 

conservation programs, including conser'.ration enforcement officer 

training and employment prog~ams, as one of the management 

activities under the new program (Subsection S(c) (5)). 

Section 5 does not say where the Secretary should locate the 

new Indian Fish and Wildlife Resource Management Program within 

the Department of the Interior. Is it the Subcommittee's 

intention that that Program operate across various Interior 

agencies, that it be located within the BIA, or that its location 

is an issue which will be determined in consultation with tribes? 

We think that the bill should be more explicit. If it is not 

clear where the new program fits within the Department, one 

practical consequence is likely to be that the Program will not be 

included in the Department's budget request to Congress. 

We strongly support Subsection S(d), which would authorize 

the Secretary to provide financial and technical assistance to 

enable a tribe to review and update or revise its tribal 

management codes, ordinances and regulations; evaluate the need 

for and provide training to tribal conservation and other fish and 

wildlife staff; and document the condition of the resources. 

Because tribes have diverse views about what laws and regulations 

are needed to manage their resources and to govern subsistence and 

commercial uses, and many tribes, in fact, have very comprehensive 

conservation codes in place, the tribes are in the best situation 

to determine whether existing tribal codes and regulatory programs 

are adequate or should be changed. This subsection, in which the 

Secretary would serve in a role that supports tribes developing 

their regulatory programs in accordance with tribally defined 

objectives and priorities, is in keeping with the spirit of selfdetermination. 

While a number of tribes in the Great Lakes states have 

developed sophisticated integrated Natural Resources Management 

plans for fish and wildlife management, the Menominee Tribe does 

not yet have such a plan in place. Areas which the Tribe hopes to 

address include beaver overpopulation, deer overharvest, game 

habitat improvement, and deer and bear registration. We also need 

to obtain accurate fish and wildlife population data, and upgrade 

our fish culture facilities. 

Under Subsection S(e), a tribe would have three years to 

evaluate the condition of its resources and haDitat conditions, 

and identify holistic goals and objectives specific to fish and 

wildlife management through a public meeting process which would 

involve the wider community. We believe that such a Resource 

Management Plan will be very helpful. We are particularly pleased 

to note that one of the requirements for such a Resource 

Management Plan would be to "define critical values of the Indian 

tribe and its members and provide identified holistic management 

objectives. 11 While such a requirement would be especially 

important for reservations where the BIA rather than the tribal 

government develops the Plan, we think that th~s is also a 

reasonable requirement for tribes. 
125 

Since the pr8visions of t he bill would provide that a tribe 

or triba l organization could contract to administer any program in 

the Department of che Interior which affects fish and wildlife 

resc·urces, and because the bill's Findings correctly note that the 

truet responsibi:ity to protect and enhance tribal fis h and 

wilcl i fe resources extends to all federal agencies, we suggest a 

minor amendment to Subsection (e ) (C) (2). vie suggest that the plan 

shm.:.ld govern the management and administration of the resources 

no t only by the Bc:.reau and the triba l government, but by !illY 

In tE~rior agency w!-.i ch administers a program affecting triba l f ish 

and wildlife resources. In t he a lternative, we suggest that 

Section 6 regardi~g tribal consultation be amended to provide that 

departmental actions shall be reviewed in light of the Tribal Fish 

and Wildlife Management Plan. 

Sect: ion 9 - Educa ti.on in Fish ar.d Wildlife Resource Management. 

We appreciate the clarificati on that the new int er~ positions 

f or fish and wild:ife which would be created under H.R . 2874 would 

be o.n addition to, rather than be competitive with, the fores ter 

inter n positions . With respect to the intern and coope!:'ative 

education p r ogralls, we are glad to see those positions not just 

lirno. ted to the BIA Fish, Wildli fe and Recreation Program, as under 

t he Senate draft . Depending on a tribe's Resourc e Management 

Plan, we see a possibility of an intern gathering expertise in the 

ntE~gration of resources in the Water Resource Branch or Division 

of Forestry, or Envirorunental Services. This f l exibility is 

appropriate i n light of the bill's goal s of integrated resource 

management plans. 

As noted ear::..ier, we recommend that the term "Indian lands" 

be deleted and be replaced with "Indian fis h and wi~dlife 

resources." 

Section 12 - Trust Responsibility. 

As we n o ted above regarding the Subcommittee's drafting of 

Secti on 2, the Findings section, we apprec iate the bill's 

recognition of the trust responsibility and the honoring of treaty 

rights in Section 12. 

Section 13 - Authorization of Aporopriations . 

Finally, the Menominee Tribe wishes to express its concern 

that another source of funding be identified to carry out the 

obj13ctives of the propos ed legislation. ~V e as k this Subcommittee 

t o consider a tribal set-aside within the Ding ell-Johnson a nd 

Pit':man-Robertsor_ funds, or some other form of tribal access to 

Fed,3ral Aid in Fish and Wildlife Restoration or Land and Water 

Conservation funds. These statutory funding sources Eo:::- state 

fish and wildli :e programs are funded, in part, t hrough the 

dedication of various k inds of federal tax receipts. Although 

individual Indians pay these taxes just like other citizer.s, 

tri!Jal goverrunent.s do not have access t o these funds for use in 

tribal fish and ·,.;:.ldlife conservation programs . 

83-120 0 - 94 - 5 
126 

7 

For the Subcomm::tee's i~fo rma t:on, we note that in 1979 the 

Department of the Interior published a Task Fo rce Report ent itled 

"Increasing Par t~ci pacion by Indian TYibes in the Land ar.d Wa t er 

Cons ervation Fu~d. " The Land and Water Conse r vation Fund (L&WCF), 

16 U.S.C. §§ 460d to 4601-11, is one source of federal assistance 

that state fish and wi ldlife agencies can use for habitat 

restoration projects. (The L&WCF is funded, in par t, by the 

receipt of taxes on motorboat fuels, taxes which Indi ans routinely 

pay. The L&WCF is also funded wi th the federa l governmen t ' s 

receipts derived from outer continental shelf oil and gas.) The 

1979 Task Fo r ce Report recommended that the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund c~ be amended to create a separate program for 

Indian tribes, similar to the federa l assistance program for 

states. It is our understanding that, although the Department put 

some effort into developing a legislative proposal based on the 

Task Force's recommendations, such a legislative proposal never 

was submitted to Congress . We suggest that the Subcommittee look 

into t his because it :s clearly rel evant to the issue of providing 

a ccess for tribal fish and wildlife agenc i es to f edera l sources of 

assistance which are available to state agenc i es . 

In closi ng, the Menominee Indian Tribe o f Wisconsin again 

e xpresses our thanks to the Native American Af fairs Subcommittee 

f or i ts l eadership in developing the I ndian Fish and Wildl i fe 

Resource Enhancement Act of 1993, and for the opportunity to 

submit our comments on the bill . We look forward to working wi th 

the Congress toward enactment of this important legislation. 
127 

~U~CIIIU~ Tribe cf India~ TESTIMORY OF 

WILLIAM A. WARREN 

FISHERIES MANAGEMENT BIOLOGIST 

FOR THE 

PUYALLUP TRIBE OF INDIANS 

ROBERTA YOUNG, CHAIRWOMAN 

BEFORE 

TBE SUBCOMMITTEE ON NAriVE AMERICAN AFFAIRS 

OF THE HOUSE NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTE! 

OR 

rHE INDIAN FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCE 

ENHANCEM!RT ACT OF 1993 (B.R. 287,) 

8 OCTOBER 1993 

I. INTRODUCTION 

Funding for tribal governments to develop comprehensive 

natural resource management plans and staffs has not kept pace with 

the need. Natural resource management is becoming increasingly 

complex and involves all aspects of tribal government activities. 

The statutory responsibilities of tribes for natural resource 

management has exceeded the funding available to adequately address 

these responsibilities. 

Tribal governments contribute significantly to the demand for 

natural resources among both Indian and non-indian people, 

therefore, it is in the nation's interest to support the protection 

and further development of tribal natural resources through this 

bill. 

II. STATEMERT OF SUPPORT 

The Puyallup Tribe supports the major principles and goals 

outlined in the latest draft (August 4, 1993) of H.R. 2874. The 

Tribe believes this is a good first start at comprehensive Native 

American fish and wildlife legislation. 

The Puyallup Tribe strongly supports language in the current 

bill which specifically recognizes the trust responsibility of the 

United States regarding fish and wildlife resource protection and 

enhancement. The Tribe also strongly supports language in the 

current bill stating the commitment of the United States to a 

government-to-government relationship with I ndian tribes which 

recogni z es the right of full participation of tribes in decisions 

affecting tribal natural resources. We are also pleased to see 

6824 Pioneer Way East • Puyallup, Washington 98371 • (206) 593-0254 
128 

Page 2 

Testimony of the Puyallup Tribe 

H.R. 2874 

8 October 1993 

the commitment to adequate funding for carrying out the bill" s 

requirements. The commitment to education and training of Native 

American natural resource management professionals is also an 

important part of the current bill. We also strongly support the 

inclusion of "integrated resource management" concepts in the bill, 

and the requirement that Indian tribes will be full participants 

in the implementation of this act. 

III. CONCERNS OVER OMISSIONS IN PR!SERT DRAFT 

The Puyallup Tribe is concerned, however, over the removal 

from earlier drafts language requiring tribal sharing of funds from 

Federal Aid in Sport Fish and Wildlife Restoration (DingellJohnson, Pittman-Robertson and Wallop-Breaux programs) and the Land 

and Water Conservation Account funds. It is our position that this 

provision be retained in the present bill. We are also concerned 

about the failure to specifically mention the need for tribal 

funding to implement sensitive species management plans. Such 

language should provide the resources necessary to avoid further 

decline in sensitive species which would precipitate ESA listing. 

Not only does ESA listing signal a threat to the resource, but also 

to the ability of Indian communities to pursue their traditional, 

and economically important, hunting, fishing, and gathering 

activities. We believe that if this bill is to be truly 

comprehensive these provisions must be included. 

The bill should clearly state that Indian fish and wildlife 

management authority, as well as the government • s trust 

responsibility to protect and enhance Indian fish and wildlife 

resources, extends to both Indian and non-indian land within 

reservation boundaries as well as ceded lands. In addition, the 

bill should include specific language recognizing the government's 

responsibility to insure access and availability of fish and 

wildlife resources to tribes. We also believe that the bill should 

specifically recognize the importance of funding and legislative 

support for environmental and habitat protection. This language 

was included in earlier drafts and should be retained in the final 

bill. Environmental and habitat protection are the ultimate 

determinates of whether fish and . wildlife resources will be 

available to tribes in the future. We are also concerned with the 

elimination of the section dealing specifically with "Tribal Co -

Management in Off-Reservation Settings" found in earlier drafts of 

the bill. As you are probably aware, cooperative management is an 

integral aspect of tribal natural resource management among U.S. 

vs. Washington tribes of the Pacific Northwest. This relationship 

has become increasingly complex with the addition of issues 

involving forest management, wildlife, and water quality. 

Therefore, there is a strong need to expand support for this 
129 

Page 3 

Testimony of the Puyallup Tribe 

H.R. 2874 

8 October 1993 

activity. Finally, it should be clarified that the bill specifies 

additional funding not replacement funding for programs already 

established. 

IV. EDITORIAL COMMENTS OM PRESENT DRAFT (4 AUGUST 1993) 

The following comments do not include specific suggestions 

for incorporating all the tribes concerns mentioned in Section III 

of our testimony, however, we strongly support that all the 

concerns mentioned in our testimony be included in the bill. 

The following comments refer to the draft of 4 August 1993 by 

s.ection and paragraph number. 

Sec.2.FINDINGS 

(1) It should be made clear that government-to-government 

relationships with Indian tribes should be implemented by all 

~'overnment agencies and departments. 

(2) It should be pointed out that the government's trust 

z·esponsibility for fish and wildlife extends to ceded lands as well 

a.s to lands within reservation boundaries, and any activities, even 

if outside ceded lands or reservation boundaries, that threaten 

Indian fish and wildlife resources. 

(5) Include reference to the jurisdiction of Indian tribes over 

fish and wildlife management within ceded territory in conjunction 

~·ith other state and federal agencies. 

(7) Emphasize the benefits to non-indian as well as Indian 

communities 

~:EC. 3 . PURPOSES. 

( 1) State that the Act reaffirms and protects Indian hunting, 

fishing, and gathering rights on land within the reservation 

boundaries, regardless of ownership, and on ceded territory. 

SEC.4.DEFINITIONS. 

( 2) This definition must be amended to include any fish enhancement 

facility (hatchery, rearing po nds, spawning channels, etc.) "owned 

or operated by an Indian tribe or the Bureau, or by the United 

States Fish and Wildlife Service for an Indian tribe o r the Bureau, 

which is engaged ... .. " . The qualifier "on an Indian reservation" 

@lust be removed as the Puyallup tribe has the need for investment 

in fish enhancement facilities o ff the reserv ation . This is 

bec ause the Puyallup Tribe reservation boundaries d o not encompass 

t:he entire watershed o n which our salmon fisheries depend and due 
130 

Page 4 

Testimony o f the Puyallup Tribe 

H.R. 2874 

8 October 1993 

to the biological requirements of the salmon, their enhancement 

facilities, in most cases, must be located off reservation to be 

effective. 

(5) We are not familiar with the language in the Indian Forest Management Act but recommend that "forest land management activity .. conform to the principles of .. integrated resource aanage•ent••. 

(6) Make clear that this includes off reservation hunting and 

fishing rights. 

SEC.5. INDIAN FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM. 

(a) MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES . 

(1) "To protect, conserve, and enhance fish and wildlife resources, 

and their habitat, that are important •... " 

(d) ASSISTANCE. 

(3) The need for infrastructure should also be me ntioned. 

Obviously a tribe cannot have a natural resource management staff 

if there are no office facilities or transportation available. 

(5) "determine and document the condition of the Indian fish and 

wildlife resources, and their habitat.· 

(e) INDIAN FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLANS. 

Make clear that funding will be provided directly to tribes 

specifically for the task of developing fish and wildlife resource 

management plans. We could not find such a reference in this 

section of the bill. This is also not covered under "Purposes " 

which is referred to in SEC.l3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 
REDLAKE BAND 

of CHIPPEWA INDIANS 

Red Lake, MN 56671 

DIVISION: 

131 

Phone 218-679-3 341 • Fax 218-679-3378 

STATEMENT OF 

TUfAAL COUNCJL 

Organiz<'d Ap1il 18, 1918 (Rt'Yi ~ Contlitution & fly -Lu ·o, 

J.n.., ryG, I9!'.9) 

OFFICERS: Cf: RAI.D r. lllti;N, Ch<.irnu:n 

OOilDY Wllln:n:ATIU:R, Se< re\41)' 

J A.\tF.S STRO!'G, Trra no •~ • 

DJS1'RICT REPRESE="'TAT IVES: llO ~A~ P. STA1TlY, J R. r A!IV.!\ COOK 

UJ!\:'\'A J,., rM.t\U A:-.'KS 

l'H£ Sl'O:-o' Cll.AV); S 

L.~\ HJ:: :o-T r: ur:nr:Au M.J.I: X 1:!\(,;[,.ISJ/, Jll. 

1'0~1 J. STU.I.DAY. JR. 

Cl.ll'TOHO C. II.'J{OY 

AD\1SORY COt::O:CJL: 

1 m:m:OITt\RY Clllt.F.S 

CH IY.P COU!•ICII. ())> J.'IS9 

M•) ·~ ~)'·.("': r»r. ..C: 

:'\ ~h· r~ .tr.·t- , .. or;-:.:.e 

:\~~)"l fO CO·C•Io •; y 

:.r. :~ .. ,-,,.ay·il"·•l:;ol 

S: o>·· ~~;, ... ~~ 

s. :-.... • 1': ·(\ ~~y ~ .. ~·~;;r 

THE HONORABLE BOBBY WHITEFEATHER, SECRETARY 

RED LAKE BAND OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS TRIBAL COUNCIL 

Before the 

House Committee on Natural Resources 

Subcommittee on Native American Affairs 

October 8, 1993 

Mr. Chairman, and distinguished members of this Subcommittee, thank 

you for this invitation to comment on behalf of the Red Lake Band of 

;: hippewa Indians on H.R. 2874, the Indian Fish and Wildlife Resources 

\1anagement Act of 1993. 

I have previously offered testimony to this Subcommittee you concerning 

Red Lake's problems with fish and wildlife protection and management on 

February 18, 1993 and before the Senate Indian Affairs Committee on January 

·Sand June 15, 1993. 

I thank you for your responsiveness in rewriting the bill to meet our 

concern to preserve a Tribe's right to administer all functions under the Indian 

Self-Determination Act (P.L. 93-638). You also heeded our call to make the 

education support include resource technician professions. 

Red Lake continues to support H.R. 2874 and urges the Subcommittee 

to secure its passage this year. H.R. 2874 would help implement the federal 

government's trust responsibility to Tribes by enabling Tribes to manage our 

natural resources ourselves. 

Red Lake En1erprises: Red L<: l<e Sawmiif, Red Lake Fishing d'J S~ry. 

Red Lake Biilgo, Red Lake Bui:ders , Chippewa Trading Posl·Aed Lake & Ponemah 
132 

H.R. 2874 as introduced addresses many of the concerns that I have 

expressed on previous occasions. However, it does not address two concerns 

I have previously testified upon. These two matters are described below. I 

have also attached proposed bill language on the Reservation trespass issue 

that we ask the Subcommittee to include at markup on H.R. 2874. 

A. ADD A PROVISION TO AMEND AND S1RENGTilEN 

TilE FEDERAL RESERVATION 1RESPASS LAW 

On several previous occasions I have provided the Subcommittee with 

ample evidence of the critical need for Congress to amend the federal Indian 

Reservation trespass law in this bill, H.R. 2874. I continue to ask that, as a 

priority, the attached bill language be added to H.R. 2874 in your markup of 

this bill. Red Lake's experience with lawless poachers who trespass on 

Reservation lands is not unique. Other Tribes have suffered similar indignities. 

There can be no reasonable argument made against the amendment we 

propose. It does not extend authority into a new area because for decades 

federal law has prohibited unauthorized Reservation trespass. The amendment 

we propose merely modernizes the penalty structure in that trespass law. It 

does not over-reach. Rather it restores a penalty level to the law which is 

equal in impact as the original penalty was when the law was first enacted. 

The Red Lake Reservation is relatively large, with over 805,854 acres of 

tribal trust land and water. Most of these acres are within our so-called closed 

Reservation that has never been broken into allotments and lost to nonIndians. The remainder is in scattered lands that stretch north of the main 

Reservation to the Canadian border. 

Our Reservation is not under P.L. 83-280. This means the Red Lake 

Band and the United States government, not the State of Minnesota, have full 

law enforcement responsibilities for the Red Lake Reservation. We share this 

responsibility with the United States. We need H.R. 2874 to be amended to 

reflect that shared obligation. 

Increasingly, our Reservation size is a conservation enforcement 

challenge to our tribal game wardens. More and more we are unable to deal 

with the spiraling problem of non-members poaching on our lands, because 

-· PAGE 2 ·-
133 

non-members know they face only a slap on the wrist in the form of an 

outdated federal trespass violation if caught. 

At this Subcommittee's February 18, 1993 hearing, I placed on the record 

an interesting story of how our game wardens thwarted some high-technology, 

well-funded poachers who were trespassing on our Reservation. I will not 

repeat the tale here in this testimony. But that problem is a real one and must 

be addressed. As I noted at the February 18th hearing, the key to real and 

effective law enforcement is an amendment to the Reservation trespass statute 

that stiffens its penalties, including clear authority for tribal confiscation and 

forfeiture of a violator's poaching equipment and vehicle. 

Until you amend the law, federal and tribal game wardens enforce an 

aging law that has lost all its teeth due to the erosion of inflation. Under 

current law, Reservation trespassers under Title 18 of the United States Code, 

§ 1165, are subject to the maximum penalties of a $200 fine and 90 days 

imprisonment and the confiscation of any game seized. This law does not now 

expressly authorize confiscation and forfeiture of a violator's poaching 

equipment. 

If the same poacher was to trespass on federal conservation and 

recreation areas instead of an Indian Reservation, federal law authorizes a 

maximum fine of $500, up to one year imprisonment, and the confiscation of 

a violator's seized equipment. Federal wardens may either use the confiscated 

equipment or the proceeds from its sale to supplement the funding of local 

conservation enforcement efforts. 

If the same poacher was to trespass on surrounding State of Minnesota 

lands, game wardens have even stronger penalties to bring against fish and 

game violators under State law. Violators can lose their hunting and fishing 

licenses for life, be fined a maximum of $3,000, and serve up to one year in jail. 

Additionally, State wardens can and do confiscate seized equipment and devote 

it or the proceeds of its sale to local conservation enforcement programs. 

Red Lake asks Congress to correct this inequity in federal law that now 

attracts law violators to our Reservation and puts at peril our fish and wildlife 

natural resources. 

··PAGE3·· 
134 

·· y: ::··', X .. ·· T~~:t~~~ ~:~:=t~r~:::,e.~s ·. b6hiiEa ·a, .J993 HEARING OF \1-lE l;iou~E NATIVE AMERICAN AFFAIR~ su . . .. 

REoi.iu:iriib HR.:2B74 --ruE INDIAN .F!SH .-\No Wll.oLIFE RESotiR¢Es MANAGEMENfAi:i 'oi"1993 

The solution Red Lake proposes, which is attached to this testimony, is 

bill language which should be added to the Indian Fish and Wildlife Resource 

Management Act of 1993 to strengthen the reservation trespass statute (18 

u.s.c. § 1165). 

Our objective is to amend the law to stiffen penalties for prohibited nonmember hunting and fishing on-Reservation, increasing the maximum fine from 

$200 to $3,000 and the maximum jail term from 90 days to one year, and 

authorizing tribal confiscation and forfeiture of violator's poaching equipment 

and vehicles. 

The penalties in 18 U.S.C. § 1165 have not been altered for more than 

thirty years and inflation has eroded the impact of the maximum $200 fine. 

For example, if the $200 maximum fine is adjusted for an average annual 

inflation rate of 5%, the maximum penalty of $200 in 1960 is really less than 

$37.00 in today's dollars. 

Inflation is not the only factor weakening conservation enforcement on 

Reservations. Criminals are getting more sophisticated. To maintain their 

effectiveness, state and federal enforcement measures are becoming 

increasingly sophisticated. One of the most effective of the new enforcement 

tools is the authority to seize and forfeit a poacher's equipment and vehicle. 

Like in the area of drug enforcement, taking the tools of the criminal 

enterprise has emerged as an important and effective measure in conservation 

enforcement by federal and state governments, These same forfeiture powers 

should be applied to Indian Reservations' conservation enforcement efforts to 

assist underfunded tribal government conservation programs. 

For these reasons, Red Lake proposes that 18 U.S.C. § 1165 be amended 

to increase its maximum penalties to a $3,000 fine, or one year imprisonment, 

or both, and to additionally vest tribal conservation enforcement programs with 

the authority to seize and forfeit to tribal use all personal property used by the 

violator to carry out the violation. This would include forfeiture powers over 

hunting and fishing as well as all transportation equipment used in the criminal 

enterprise. 

-PAGE4-
135 

'O T~?~1 F,)i;f'€.' ~Eo ~ ' · THe·HoNOI\ABLE BailBY W 

:;: Af6~ iEJy~·~:?~ ~ . ·· .. ", , " . 

We believe it may be most politically feasible to include a provision that 

would automatically apply the higher of either the new federal penalties we 

propose or the neighboring state's penalties for prohibited hunting and fishing 

on state-administered game preserves. Since state penalties vary from state to 

state, Congress could in this way ensure that penalties applied on Reservations 

are no less stringent than surrounding state penalties. 

B. EXPLORE FUNDING MECHANISMS TO ASSURE A BASIC FUNDING 

LEVEL FOR TRIBAL FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION PROGRAMS 

H.R. 2874 carries a general authorization of funds. As we all know, 

actual funding will be dependent upon the Administration and Congress finding 

additional funds that are increasingly scarce because of federal budget cuts and 

spending caps. Without something more than a general funding authorization, 

H.R. 2874 may end up nothing more than a paper exercise, despite its good 

intentions. 

It is becoming harder and harder for Tribes like Red Lake to adequately 

fund our natural resource programs. More and more people are living on or 

visiting the Reservation as our populations swell and Reservation economic life 

begins to make a come back. As more of our people return home, our 

Reservation's natural resources are relied on more and more for sustenance. 

As more and more people come on to our Reservation, it is under an 

increasing threat of environmental degradation. 

In the last number of years BIA funding for tribal natural resource 

programs has declined. More and more of the funding has been sporadic and 

often project specific. We see a critical need for Congress to authorize and 

appropriate stable and consistent levels of funds specifically targeted for the 

comprehensive tribal government operation of a Tribe's natural resource core 

management program. 

We ask that this Subcommittee explore, in future legislation that does not 

obstruct the quick enactment of H.R. 2874, amending revenue collection and 

distribution mechanisms like the Dingell-Johnson and Pittman-Robertson Acts 

-PAGE 5 •• 
136 

. .. . . . · ·: ~::~t6~ ~~~~H~~~~: ;: ~~4~' , ... ···' .... ·.· .; ·. OcrosER 8; ; 993 HEARING oF TilE 1:16usE NATIVE AMERI~ AFFAIRS Suscqli1MITI:Ea ·>: :·, ... REGARDING H. A. 287~- wil INoiAN FlsJi AND WILDLIFE FiEsoui<cEs MmAGooi'<:fAcr:oF.,993· 

so that tribal governments are provided their fair share of the taxes collected 

on Reservation activity. 

All State and local governments receive a proportional share of funds 

collected under these Acts from special taxes levied on the sale of licenses, 

permits, weapons, ammunition, gear, equipment, boats, fuel, and related 

consumer goods used in fishing and hunting activities. Such funds are 

automatically collected by the federal government and returned to States and 

local units of government in proportional shares for fish and wildlife restoration 

projects. But none of these funds now are allocated to tribal governments 

despite the fact that some of the taxed hunting and fishing activities occur on 

tribal lands, including lands over which State and local governments have no 

jurisdiction or conservation responsibility. Nothing is allocated to Indian 

Reservations despite the fact that all Reservation fish and wildlife recreational 

activities contribute money to these funds. There is a strong case to be made, 

on basic fairness and equity, that tribal conservation and enforcement programs 

should get a share of such funds. While Red Lake does not wish consideration 

of such a provision to slow down passage of H.R. 2874, we would like this 

Subcommittee to explore this issue in future legislation. 

C. CONCLUSION. 

Please let us know how we might assist you in refining and securing 

passage of H.R. 2874 during this session of Congress. Thank you for this 

opportunity to be heard. 

RLF&W13A TST 

0152/07203 

-PAGE6-
137 

• 5'\\i} ( ' TESTIMONY:OF, mi f' D LAKE BtJ;q 6~ •• ····•· ....... ,, .. !No@$ 

; .... '?•:::·········· ·· ,, .. , THEHpNoJ\AB~~ BBYWHJ1EFEAhlER ESlU';1'AJ<Y••·· i b g:pBER ~· 1 993. EA UNo elf" Til~ . ouSE NATIVE AM!'Ric,\N fJ'FA!Rs u~~o rm<:E RE(;ARol>j(llj.J:t 2874 ,-, :rHiifi.!n.~J'isHA1<J) ILDLI~ . F!ESoiJRcEs MA!<AGEMENT f,q,OF 1.993 

RESERVATION TRESPASS/POACHER AMENDMENT 

18 U.S.C. § 1165 (Indian Reservation trespass statute) 

H.R. 2874 TITLE VI -- MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 

SEC. 605. RESERVATION TRESPASS. 

Section 11 65 of Title 18 of the United States Code is hereby amended to read as 

follows: 

SECTION 1165. HUNTING, TRAPPING, OR FISHING ON INDIAN LAND.--Whoever, 

without lav.ful authority or permission, willfully and knowingly goes upon any land 

that belongs to any Indian or Indian tribe, band, or group and either are held by the 

United Sta tes in trust or are subject to a restriction against alienation imposed by the 

United States, or upon any lands of the United States that are reserved fer Indian 

use, fo r the purpose of hunting, trapping, or fishing thereon, or fo r the removal of 

game, peltries, or fish therefrom, shall be fined not more than ~ $3,000 or 

imprisoned not more than P.~ one yea r, or both, and all game, fish, ami 

peltries. vehicles, weapons, gear, and other hunting and fishi ng equipment in his 

possession shall be forfeited to the Indian tribal government exercising conservation 

au thority ove r the Indian land upon which the trespass occurred. The forfeit ed 

pronertv, or the proceeds therefrom, shall be used bv said tribe in furthemnce of its 

fOnservation enforcement activitie s. 

AMENDMENT PROPOSED BY TilE RED lAKE BAND OF C HIPPEWA IND!ANS 0 CfOBER 8, 1993 
138 

TESTIMONY OF THE 

NATIVE AMERICAN FISH & WILDLIFE SOCIETY 

TO THE 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

Honorable Bill Richardson, Chairman 

Subcommittee on Native American Mfairs 

Comments on the draft legislation titled "Indian Fish and Wildlife 

Resource Enhancement Act of 1993" to the Subcommittee on Native 

American Affairs by Ken Poynter, Executive Director, Native American 

Fish & Wildlife Society (Society). 

Dear Mr. Chairman and Distinguished Members: 

I would like to thank the Committee on behalf of the Native 

American Fish & Wildlife Society for this opportunity to share our 

concerns on the proposed "Indian Fish and Wildlife Resource 

Enhancement Act of 1993". The Society supports the efforts of the 

House Committee on Natural Resources and the introduction of this 

legislation. 

The Native American Fish & Wildlife Society is a national tribal 

organization established to support the development of Indian tribal 

government fish and wildlife management capabilities within a 

professional framework, and to promote information about Indian 

rights regarding their use of natural resources. The Society has an 

active membership of over 60 tribes, 1,200 individual professional 

biologists, managers, technicians, conservation law enforcement 

officers, and numerous member Commissions. Society members are 

currently involved in the technical initiatives that the Society sponsors, 

as well as developing tribal technical fisheries, wildlife, and recreation 

management initiatives that are critical to the preservation and 

protection of tribal resources. 

The federally-recognized Indian tribes within the United States 

have jurisdiction over a reservation land base of over 52 million acres, 

or 81,250 square miles. Tribes also exercise jurisdictional authority 
139 

over natural resources outside of reservations due to federal court 

decisions and voluntary cooperative agreements that mandate a comanagement status between tribes and states in the Northwest and 

Great Lakes areas. Tribal lands, coupled with the Ceded and Usual 

and Accustomed areas (over 38 million acres for which tribes maintain 

co-management jurisdiction for fisheries and wildlife management and 

utilization), total a natural resource base of over 140,625 square miles, 

containing more than a million acres of lakes and impoundments 

(exclusive of the 21,596,800 surface acres of the Great Lakes Ceded 

Area) and thousands of miles of streams and rivers. Combined 

reservation lands would constitute the fifth largest state in the United 

States. Adding the off-reservation areas would constitute a land mass 

comparable to the State of Montana. 

In addition, the Native governments of Alaska have over 

45,000,000 acres of land which supports Native subsistence hunting, 

fishing, and gathering and is essential to maintaining their traditional 

lifestyle. The management of this subsistence resource - the source of 

life for the indigenous people of Alaska - is in complete disarray, with 

these people precluded from the management of the very resources 

which sustain them. Declining management funding in the Alaska 

Department of Fish and Game, non-compliance of state laws to federal 

legislation, and the lack of professional understanding and appreciation 

for Native traditional knowledge about the resource have endangered 

the resource for future generations. 

It is essential that the magnitude of the resource base under tribal 

jurisdiction be fully understood in order to underscore the necessity 

for support of tribal resource management activities. But it is even 

more important to recognize the major role that tribal management has 

assumed in the absence of state and I or federal management assistance. 

In short, had the tribal/ Native governments not stepped forward to 

manage the resource or demand changes to improve resource practices 

by federal/ state agencies, a major part of the nation's resource base 

would be in ruin. As a result of this tribal foresight, tribal / Native 

lands still represent the most natural and healthy ecosystems in the 

nation. 

2 
140 

At least nine officially recognized endangered avian species, 

seven threatened or endangered mammalian species, 11 threatened or 

endangered fish species, 12 threatened or endangered plant species, 

and one threatened reptile species occurs on reservation lands. Tribal 

fish hatcheries produce millions of salmon, steelhead trout, walleye and 

other species which support large and diverse fisheries. Wetlands 

occurring on reservations (over 20 million acres) throughout the 

country support considerable waterfowl production and offer great 

enhancement opportunity. Tribal wildlife programs manage and 

enhance extensive wildlife habitat for innumerable animal and plant 

species. Tribes across the country have begun the process of 

involvement in the North American Waterfowl Management Plan and 

have developed regulations for tribal members and non-Indians for 

harvest of waterfowl. Tribal land bases now contribute significantly 

toward meeting the demand for fisheries and wildlife recreational 

opportunities. Unfortunately, fisheries and wildlife funding options 

open to tribes have not kept pace with the expanding responsibilities 

for management, authority, or the demand for recreational 

opportunities by the tribal and non-tribal user. Tribes are now being 

recognized as prominent fisheries and wildlife management entities and 

are expecting full participation as partners in national fisheries and 

wildlife initiatives, but receive less than .40 cents per acre to conduct 

the necessary management activities. 

The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Natural Resource Inventory 

System (NRIS) report, representing the only information available at 

this time, states that over 15 million user-days of public use were 

recorded on tribal lands in 1986. Seventy-two tribes were managing 

public fishing programs. The Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes, 

Montana; Fort Apache, Arizona; Leech Lake Chippewa Tribe, 

Minnesota; Pyramid Lake, Nevada; and Lower Colorado River; 

Arizona, each provided more than 250,000 days of public recreational 

use, most associated with fishing. The Eastern Band of Cherokees of 

North Carolina, alone, has provided over 430,310 of angler use days 

from 1987-1991. Sixty-one tribes managed public hunting programs, 

and at least 40 tribes managed trapping programs on reservations 

3 
141 

which were open to non-Indian participation. Also 88 tribes opened 

parts of their reservations to public camping in developed, primitive, or 

wilderness camping areas. Indian reservations contribute significantly 

toward meeting the national demand for fishing and hunting 

opportunities. 

Indian tribes have been re-asserting their treaty-rights 

concerning the management of fish and wildlife resources. As the 

demand for fisheries and wildlife recreation in this country has 

increased, pressure has increased on the fisheries and wildlife 

resources on Indian reservations and other areas where tribes have 

jurisdiction and I or co-management authority. Tribes across the 

country now contribute significantly toward meeting the demand for 

fisheries and wildlife recreational opportunities. Unfortunately, 

recreational fisheries and wildlife funding options open to tribes have 

not kept pace with the expanding responsibilities for management, 

authority, or the demand for recreational opportunities by the tribal 

and non-tribal user. 

The disparity in funding for tribal natural resource management, 

as compared to the other federal agencies charged with the same 

management responsibilities, dictates the need for this timely 

legislation. An example of the disparity in staffing levels, the U. S. 

Forest Services manages 190 million acres of land for multiple use. The 

Service employs 1,320 fisheries and wildlife biologists and ecologists. 

In contrast, the combined tribal and BIA staffs equal about 300 for over 

100 million acres, most of whom are employed in positions of multiple 

duties. Tribes are in various stages of tribal natural resource 

development and enhancement and are in dire need of adequate 

funding and assistance to meet their management objectives. 

In order for tribes to meet the bill's objective of developing 

and I or implementing their integrated resource management plans, 

adequate funding must be made available for this to happen. To date, 

there are many tribes that have already developed comprehensive 

integrated resource management plans but have not been able to secure 

funding to implement them. It is critical that funding be made available 

to tribes to assure the intent and success of this new legislation. 

4 
142 

We strongly recommend that this bill establish programs to 

improve the management of Indian natural resources within the 

Department of the Interior rather than within the Bureau of Indian 

Affairs. We feel that the intent of this legislation should be to 

authorize and direct the existing agencies within the U.S. Department 

of the Interior to work cooperdively with tribal governments in 

developing workable tribal resource management programs. We 

further feel that this could be accomplished through cooperation among 

the agencies that already have the capability to provide for the needs 

of developing tribal programs. 

We feel that cooperation and coordination among the various 

federal agencies will ensure that future funding allocated for tribal 

natural resource management will make it down to the tribal level for 

its intended purpose. We must begin to explore ways to responsibly 

and prudently disperse future management dollars so that tribes can 

get more out of the funding that they receive. 

Although tribal conservation law enforcement was mentioned in 

Sec. 5. INDIAN FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, 

subsections (c) and (d), due to the tremendous need and desire of tribes 

to develop efficient conservation enforcement programs to protect 

their fish and wildlife resources, we suggest that a specific Tribal 

Conservation Law Enforcement component be included in the bill as a 

separate section. Conservation law enforcement accreditation, 

standards, curriculum development and officer authority are the areas 

that need attention. Allowing tribes to contract with the Office of 

Trust Responsibility for P.L. 93-638 contract funding to develop their 

own conservation law enforcement programs is critical to their success. 

In closing, we sincerely hope that the result of this effort will be 

legislation that provides the tools needed by tribes for self-directed 

fish and wildlife management of their precious natural resources, the 

resources that are so important to the traditional and cultural needs of 

these Indian communities. Thank you for providing this opportunity to 

present our comments. 

5 
143 

STATEMENT SUBMITTED TO THE 

BOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIVE AMERICAN AFFAIRS 

ON H.R. 2874, 

THE "INDIAN FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCE ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 1993" 

by R. Max Peterson, Executive Vice-President 

International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 

The International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 

appreciates the opportunity to offer a statement for the record on 

H.R. 2874, the "Indian Fish and Wildlife Resource Enhancement Act 

of 1993." 

The International Association is an organization whose 

government members include the fish and wildlife agencies of all 

fifty states, ten canadian provinces, and u.s. and Canadian federal 

agencies having responsibilities for fish and wildlife. Founded in 

1902, the International Association has been a key instrument in 

promoting principles of sound resource management and in fostering 

federal-state cooperation in the protection and management of fish 

and wildlife. 

Before we go any further, we would 1 ike to emphasize our 

desire to work with the Committee to determine how best to deal 

with the many fish and wildlife resources which cross 

jurisdictional boundaries. It has become apparent to us, and to 

members of the Committee as well, that to become involved in legal 

entanglements over native fish and wildlife management represents 

an uncertain and expensive morass. The Association has recognized 

this and, as a result, has been a long-time advocate for increased 

funding for tribes to better manage fish and wildlife resources. 

Expanding the fish and wildlife resource management budgets of the 

tribes makes good sense: economically, socially and 

environmentally. The Association has worked in the past with the 

Native American Fish and Wildlife Society and other tribal 

representatives to support increased budgets for fish and wildlife 

management. We have testified each year before Congressional 

committees to support increased appropriations for tribal fish and 

wildlife resources. Initiatives such as the "Circle of Flight" 

North American Waterfowl Management Plan project is but one example 

where the Association has actively and aggressively sought to 

obtain funding for the tribes. 

The Association has long been in favor of state-federal-tribal 

cooperation in fish and wildlife resource management. The 

Association has actively sought forums for discussion of such 

matters; the hearing on H.R . 2874 is yet one more example of an 

opportunity to explore this cooperation. The Association favors 

the term "cooperation", not "co-management". Cooperation allows, 

we believe, a wider, and more elastic approach to management than 

a more rigidly held "co-management" concept which may raise more 

legal and jurisdictional problems than it solves. We urge the use 

of cooperative agreements that allow for specific actions to evolve 
144 

and incorporate changes that occur to the various interested 

parties. 

The subject matter of H.R. 2874 is Indian hunting and fishing 

rights, a subject which has two outstanding characteristics: one, 

it is complex; two, generalizations about jurisdiction and 

authority relating thereto are hazardous. One thing is certain, 

however, and that is that this is an area which could benefit from 

greater cooperation between tribes, states and the federal 

government in bringing about improvements on many reservations in 

fish and wildlife resource management. 

Going right to the point, Mr. Chairman, the International 

Association supports the core initiative of H.R. 2874 to improve 

tribal capability in managing fish and wildlife resources on 

reservations. Tribes can, and do, qualify for federal aid by 

working with the states, and by meeting the same criteria as the 

states for use of those funds. Currently, ther e are examples where 

this is occurring and funds from many sources including the Federal 

Aid to Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Programs are being used. 

A number of states are currently working with tribes to obtain and 

use federal aid to help manage their fish and wildlife resources. 

In these cases, the tribes have agreed to provide for public use on 

a non-discriminatory basis to qualify far the use of these funds. 

We believe such agreements represent an important template for 

other agreements . This is an important consideration and a further 

expression of the "cooperation" we discussed earlier. 

Returning to the bill, however, as we read it, we are 

concerned that it does not capture the spirit of cooperation that 

is necessary for making progress in improving fish and wildlife 

resources. Rather, we think it may authorize a massive preemption 

of state authority on ceded lands and other off-reservation areas. 

We believe also that H.R. 2874 could be construed to weaken the 

protections of federal conservation laws such as the Endangered 

Species Act, the Bald Eagle Protection Act, and the Migratory Bird 

Treaty Act. We would appreciate assurances from the Committee that 

it is not the intent of the legislation to alter existing federalstate jurisdictional responsibilities or to weaken federal 

conservation statutes. To that end we are prepared to work with 

the committee to develop appropriate savings provisions. 

If, however, the goal is to supersede existing state authority 

on reservations, ceded lands, and other off-reservation areas, then 

we would urge that the legislation say as much so that the debate 

may begin and years of litigation may be avoided. I can tell you 

that states with large areas of ceded land subject to reserved 

Indian hunting and fishing rights will not welcome such a prospect, 

entailing as it inevitably would the erosion of the privilege of 

non-members to hunt and fish the ceded lands. 

2 
145 

I am attaching a supplemental statement and legal analysis of 

H.R. 2874 which explores in detail some of these concerns more 

closely. 

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman , the Association feels that while 

H. R. 2874 in general purports to improve the ability of Indian 

tribes to manage fish and wildlife resources, a goal which we 

support, there are also areas of substantial concern which we think 

need to be addressed. We wish to once again emphasize our desires 

to work on cooperative approaches to meet the pressing needs of the 

tribes. Managing fish and wildlife resources while retaining the 

basic authority of state fish and wildlife agencies is critical. 

Meeting obligations to Native Americans now prov ided by treaties 

and existing law is also critical. If we try, by Federal 

legislation, to change jurisdiction or rights which have been 

established over many years, the result will likely be confusion 

and chaos which will be detrimental to making progress in fish and 

wildlife resource management. 

3 
146 

SUPPLEMENTAL ANALYSIS OF H.R. 2874, 

THE "INDIAN FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCE ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 1993" 

TO ACCOMPANY THE STATEMENT OF THE IAFWA 

TO THE HOOSE SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIVE AMERICAN AFFAIRS 

In summary, the Association has serious concerns about the 

implications of H.R. 2874 on the existing jurisdictional 

authorities of the State fish and wildlife agencies, and its impact 

on existing Federal and State statutes for the conservation of fish 

and wildlife resources. Specifically, our concerns are: 

1. Although asserting a general purpose to improve the 

capacity of tribes to manage fish and wildlife, a goal 

with which IAFWA can concur, the legislation provides 

expansive and controversial descriptions of tribal 

interests and is an obvious attempt to overrule 

legislatively a number of Supreme Court and lower court 

precedents with which tribal interests disagree. These 

over-broad assertions permeate the bill. 

2. The essential thrust of H.R . 2874 is to transform the 

reserved tribal right to hunt and fish off-reservation on 

ceded lands into a sovereign right to regulate nonmembers by directing the Secretary of the Interior to 

manage fish and wildlife resources on ceded areas for the 

benefit of Indians. If requested by a tribe, the 

Secretary would be required to let the tribe administer 

fish and wildlife programs on ceded areas. 

J. Within reservations, H.R. 2874 would preempt state 

authority over navigable waters, fee-patented inholdings 

and other areas which have been conveyed for public 

purposes. State authority has been confirmed in case law 

and the bill would reverse these rulings. 

4. On vast areas of ceded lands, H.R. 2874 would preempt 

primary state authority to manage fish and wildlife, as confirmed by case law, and would establish an enhanced 

preference for Indians by directing the Secretary to 

manage Indian fish and wildlife resources for the 

subsistence, economic and employment needs of Indian 

tribes. 

5. H.R. 2874 would weaken state and federal protection of 

endangered and threatened species on reservations and 

ceded areas as well as protections for migratory birds. 

6. H.R. 2874 would either preempt state management authority on ceded lands or produce regulatory conflict and a 

duplication of effort by federal and state resource 

managers on such areas. Two independent natural resource 

management systems, whose objectives differ, cannot exist 

on the same area. 
147 

A more detailed analysis of the bill follows. 

1. Findings (§2) 

a. The principal finding of section 2(2) is a misstatement 

of existing law. Section 2(2) finds that "the United States has a 

trust responsibility to protect, conserve, and enhance Indian fish 

and wildlife resources consistent with its fiduciary obligation to 

and its unique relationship with Indian tribes. " 

COMMENT. The Government has no existing trust responsibility 

to protect, conserve and enhance Indian fish and wildlife 

resources. It is well established that the Government, in its 

dealings with Indian tribal property, acts in a fiduciary capacity. 

United States v. Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, 489 U.S. 700, 707 

{1987). But that federal responsibility "do[es) not create 

property rights where none would otherwise exist." Ibid. No 

Indian property rights are involved in respect of fish and 

wildlife. As stated by the Ninth circuit, "[A] tribe cannot claim to 'own' the fish and game on the reservation so as to deprive the 

state of any interest in them." White Mountain Apache Tribe v. 

State of Arizona, 649 F.2d 1274, 1283 (9th Cir. 1981). A fortiori, 

a tribe does not own fish and wildlife off reservation on ceded 

lands. Moreover, even where Indian property rights are implicated, 

the term "trust" is something of a misnomer. "[T)he fiduciary 

relationship springs from the statutes and regulations which 

'define the contours of the United states' fiduciary 

responsibilities."' Pawnee v. United States, 830 F.2d 187, 192 

(Fed. Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1032 {1988) (quoting 

United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 224 (1983). This is not to say that Congress may not create fiduciary responsibilities in 

Government, only that no such fiduciary responsibility exists with 

respect to fish and wildlife. 

b. Section .2 (2) extends the "trust responsibility" to all 

Federal agencies and departments" and declares that, in the absence 

of a clear expression of congressional intent to the contrary, "the 

United States has a duty to administer Federal fish and wildlife 

conservation laws in a manner consistent with the treaty rights of 

Indian tribes." The related finding in section 2(3) announces the 

scope of the rule of construction set forth in section 2{2), viz., 

that any federal statute and regulation which affects "Indian fish 

and wildlife resources and tribal resource management activities" 

shall be interpreted in accordance with "the trust responsibility set forth in this Act . " 

COMMENT . The section 2(3) reference to "the trust responsibility set forth in this Act" renders it unclear whether 

the trust responsibility for fish and wildlife is thought to exist 

independently of H.R. 2874 or is to be created by H.R. 2874. 

Although listed under the findings section, section 2(2) and (3) 

2 
148 

are not findings but appear to constitute a substantive declaration 

of trust and a rule of statutory construction. The substantive 

provisions of section 2(2) and (3) would result in an implied 

repeal of all federal and state fish and wildlife conservation laws 

and regulations "which affect Indian fish and wildlife resources 

and tribal resource management activities. " That would include: 

state endangered species laws; the federal Endangered Species Act; 

the Marine Mammal Protection Act; the Migratory Bird Treaty Act; 

the Bald Eagle Protection Act; and other federal and state laws 

which affect Indian fish and wildlife resources. 

c. Section 2(4) finds that fish and wildlife resources located "on Indian lands and treaty-ceded territory" continue to 

provide a resource base for the subsistence, cultural enrichment, 

and economic support of Indian tribes and individual Indians. 

COMMENT. Like other generalizations in this bill, the finding 

of section 2 ( 4) is too broadly stated. For example, in South 

Dakota v. Ducheneaux, civ . No. 88-3049 U.S. District court for the 

District of South Dakota (August 21, 1990) , the federal court 

considered the extent of dependence of the Cheyenne River Sioux 

Tribe on fish and Wildlife resources and entered the finding that 

"It does not appear that subsistence hunting and fishing is widely 

practiced by present Cheyenne River Sioux Indians." The 

"subsistence and economic support" finding will be invoked to 

support commercial use of fish and wildlife by tribes and 

individual Indians on reservations and on ceded areas. 

d. Section 2(5) declares that Indian tribes have 

jurisdiction over Indian and non-Indian hunting and fishing 

activities on Indian reservations and function as co-managers with 

tribal, State and Federal authorities to carry out shared 

management responsibilities for fish and wildlife resources arising 

from treaties, statutes or court orders . 

COMMENT. This finding is not an accurate description of 

tribal jurisdiction and is inconsistent with Supreme Court 

decisions. See comment on section 5 at item 3, below . 

e. Section 2(6) and (7 ) find that the United States has an obligation to provide assistance to Indian tribes to monitor Indian 

hunting and fishing, to protect and conserve populations and 

habitats and to maintain fish hatcheries, and that improved 

management will yield increased economic returns and enhance Indian 

self-determination. 

2. Definitions (§4) 

a. "Indian fish and wildlife resource," a term used 

throughout the bill, is defined in section 4(6) as "any species of 

animal or plant life located on Indian reservations or in which 

3 
149 

Indians have a right protected by Federal law to fish, hunt, trap, 

or gather for subsistence, ceremonial, recreational or commercial 

purposes, or for which an Indian tribe has management or comanagement responsibilities." 

b. Section 4 (14) defines "treaty-ceded territory" as the 

land ceded to the United states by treaty upon which the ceding 

tribe or tribes retain hunting, fishing and gathering rights. 

3. Indian Fish and Wildlife Resource Management (§5) 

section 5(a) (5) directs the Secretary of the Interior to 

manage "Indian fish and Wildlife resources" for several stated 

objectives including "subsistence, cultural enrichment and economic 

development" for the benefit of Indian tribes and their members. 

See also §5(a) (1). Section 5(a) (4) authorizes the Secretary "to 

selectively develop and increase production of certain fish and 

wildlife resources" in order to provide for "subsistence, economic 

and employment needs of -Indian tribes." And section 5(b) (3) 

directs the Secretary, upon request of a tribe, to enter into a 

contract transferring to the tribe the administration of "any 

program within the Department of the Interior which affects Indian 

fish and wildlife resources and is currently administered by the 

Secretary." 

COMMENT. Section 5 directs the Secretary to manage fish and 

wildlife located on reservations and also on ceded areas where the 

tribe or members have a reserved hunting right. Section 5 would 

constitute a massive preemption of existing state authority to 

manage fish and wildlife within reservations on navigable waters, 

title to the beds of which are in the state, Montana v. United 

States, 450 U.S. 544 (1981); State of Wisconsin v. Baker, 698 F.2d 

1323 (7th Cir. 1982); on fee-patented inholdings, Montana v. United 

States, 450 U.S. 544 (1981); and on land and water areas within 

reservations where the tribe through conveyance no longer has 

exclusive use and occupation. South Dakota v. Bourland, No. 91-

2051 (Supreme Court, June 14, 1993). In Arizona, for example, the 

Colorado River runs through the Colorado River Indian Reservation. 

Under the Equal Footing doctrine, the bed of the river is owned by 

the State of Arizona which possesses the concomitant right to manage the taking thereon of fish and wildlife. 

Concerning ceded lands, reserved treaty rights to hunt, fish 

and gather are not rights of sovereignty in the tribe. Cohen, 

Handbook of Federal Indian Law 336 (Washington 1945). To the 

contrary, the authority of the states to establish nondiscriminatory conservation regulations on ceded areas has been 

explicitly confirmed by the supreme court. The fact that tribes 

may regulate their members' exercise of treaty hunting and fishing 

rights does not make them manager of the off-reservation resource. 

That authority and responsibility resides in the states. Oregon 

4 
150 

Fish & Wildlife Dept. v. Klamath Tribe, 473 u.s. 753, 765 n.16 

(1985); New York ex rel. Be cker v. ~. 241 U.S. 556, 563 

(1916); Lac Courte Ore i lles Ba nd v. Wi sconsi n, 707 F. Supp. 1034 

(W.O. Wise. 1989). And §gg United Sta t e s v. Washington, 384 F. 

Supp. 312, 410-411 (W.O. Wash.) aff'd 520 F.2d 676 (9th Cir. 1975), 

cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1086 (1976). Large areas in northern tier 

and western states (Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, North and South 

Dakota, Colorado, Montana, Idaho, Nevada, Utah, Oregon, Washington) 

represent lands ceded by tribes to the United States, and such 

areas are frequently the subject of reserved Indian hunting and 

fishi ng rights. The state of Wisconsin, for example, has twelve 

Indian reservations within its borders, with the northern one-third 

of the state subject to a Chippewa off-reservation harvest right 

based on the status of the area as ceded territory. Significant 

areas within the boundaries of Michigan were ceded to the United 

States by a series of eight treaties with various Indian tribes. 

H.R. 2874 would, silently, preempt sta te authority on ceded areas 

and invest authority in the Secretary or, upon tribal request, in 

the tribes. 

In addition to a massive preemption of state authority, H.R. 

2874 would alter the management objective for fish and wildlife on ceded areas. At present, the states manage on a nondiscriminatory 

basis for the benefit of present and future generations of the 

people of the particular states. section 5(a)(4) of H.R. 2874 

would institute a different obj e ctive centered on discrimination, 

viz., that management by the Secretary is to "provide for the 

subsistence, economic, and employment needs of Indian tribes. " No 

mention is made in H.R. 2874 of hunting, fishing and trappi ng by 

non-Indian residents of the state in which ceded areas are located. 

It is inevitable that if the fish and wildlife resource is to be 

managed for subsistence, economic, and employment needs of Indian 

tribes, the resource will be commercialized and the privilege of 

non-tribal-member citizens to hunt, fish and trap will be 

diminished. 

b. Section 5(b) ( 3 ) of H.R. 2874 prov ides for transfer of the 

administration of fish and wi ldlife programs to Indian tribe s: 

(3) The Secretary, upon the request of any Indian tribe 

or tribal organization, shall enter into a contract with the 

tribe or tribal organization to plan, conduct, and administer 

any program within the Department of the Interior which 

affects Indian fish and wildlife resources and is currently 

administered by the Secretary . 

COMMENT. The for e going pro vision is probably 

unconstitutional. The provision purports to authorize the 

Secretary to contract out to tribes or tribal organizations the 

administration of any program "which affects" Indian fish and 

wildlife resources. Under suc h authority, the Secretary would be 

required, on request of a tribe, to transfer to the tribe the 

5 
151 

administration of any program (Endangered Species, Migratory Birds, 

Bald Eagle protection) "which affects Indian fish and wildlife 

resources" on reservations or on ceded lands. The transfer of 

administration of federal programs entrusted to the Secretary to a 

non-federal organization not subject to the Bill of Rights or the 

Administrative Procedure Act would open up immense legal and 

practical difficulties. 

c. Section 5(c) (1) provides that activities carried out 

under the Secretary's Indian Fish and Wildlife Management Program 

shall include the enforcement of tribal codes. At present, the 

applicability of tribal codes beyond reservation boundari es, such 

as on ceded areas, is limited to tribal members. Section 5(c) (1) 

would authorize the Secretary to enforce tribal codes outside 

reservations against non-tribal members on ceded areas, although it 

is unclear whether and to what extent existing law enforcement 

authorities available to the Secretary could be employed for this 

purpose. 

COMMENT. To the extent tribal codes discriminate agai nst nonIndians, the secretary would be involved in the enforcement of 

discriminatory measures on ceded areas (national forests, private 

lands) and on fee-patented reservation inholdings, thereby exposing 

the Secretary and federal enforcement personnel to assertions of 

violations of constitutional rights. If H.R. 2874 is not to set 

off a round of litigation and bitterness, it would be well for 

Congress to address closely the implications of section 5(c) (1). 

5. Regulations 

Section 10 directs the Secretary to issue regulations to 

implement the Act, and requires that such regulations "be developed 

by the Secretary with the full and active participation of Indian 

tribes." 

COMMENT. The intent of the prov~s~on concerni ng "full and 

active participation of Indian tribes" in development of 

implementing regulations should be clarified. It is unclear 

whether tribes are to be co-executors of delegated authority and 

whether it is intended that the APA is not to be applicable to the 

issuance of regulations. 

6 
DIRECTORS 

HElE'I!>f.\'lER """'~ B.A.S.S .. h.._ 

Munlp>mrty, Al 

THOMAS II. OYER 

Tto:~"""ioc!ndw~o~rit> 

Eul~~t. . Al 

HA.I411A).1HfRGER 

Trxl~rM.orint 

SpMN .. kl. MO 

OAVIO I'OKTHOIJS.E 

Ch•mpoon~• 

M • .....,t..U.Ho-. AR 

r .... ..,,.,. I'EUR HENNlt\G 

~Moldinl~~l 

LAt:II:I:-.IM_ BAKF.II 

(),tb.>.r6:.1JMtC<><p<>rJtiCOI 

W•ul~ .ll 

TIUPBAKKS 

T«klr"Sh-"" S,.onoAgen,.A....,..-. l~lo-f nrflot. ll 

TOMBHJELt 

t>..id,...,rToc hn~i<o>Grcup 

Sp<ni Ldc.lA 

liM W_ OAWSON 

Zeb<:oCo.,>o .. tiun Tul;.o, QK 

(.!UUS ~ASSNACIIT 

[~pnoif iun• . Inc . 

Clnel.ond, OH 

K£N~KTH H.UIM(X>;O lhrlbrnmondC......,r r.~.a, ...... u 

L"HARI.Jf i iUO\'ER 

R•'W'Itk>.IJ 

Aipp.n. AR 

OA\'11)1(.):-JES 

!<,j .. ,.,,.,M<on .... l'on.ld ... L.c. WI 

RIOlARO KOTIS 

Kmc. otl 

IEfi'NAI'It:JI. 

"'•hooul"b""r~lln. A..,. 

Cho<.I!(U. Il 

OWAY~E f'Ft:NNt:>;GER 

Abu.('>Mcr•. h"' F• ..t"IO'I<IKI 

RICHARD .... . fUWEU 

Am F .... NI& T.ckj.~Hn. A"" 

O.m-i~Jr,M I 

lAMES D_ RANGE w., .. M......., ....... t. lno:. 

f•uiu, VA 

AlfRED 1). RUSSO, ]II. 

O..l'untFi.,.lirw l'roolucl• Wi mtn.r;t<>~. DE 

]A:;c>NSA\JEY 

fl• ... bt·"Sw.fl~,% f'O"H 

[L}OJESMITH.JR. Gr.ady-1-\.'hit~ Bo.ls,ln< . 

r..,nv ~l , NC 

WILUAMSTEI:>IER 

0 •-• CurpoUI-.Jn 

C ... rOrnC ... ve . CA 

I'IONALO I STURDEVANT 

~·&.otco...,.,.,.r 

Eub.ula, A(. 

MICHAEL 1\'ANJ:-.IGER 

Yom4h•Ml>IMCorp<><•tiOn 

CyPfft', CA 

RONAl-OW. WEBER 

~l'>m\MI.: Corpw~ioro 

~itlnup,.lii..M N 

GIL8ER1" C. RA ~~~~: 

~VILLE S. I'KOSSUt v...,p,.,,oJ~m 

\NTHONY 1- FEDLER 

5.-<ttiG')' 

152 

Spon Fishi;:g I:::stitute 

1010 Massachusetts Aue . N.W . Washington. D.C. 20001 (202) 898-0770. Fax (202) 371-2085 

October 22, 1993 

The Honorable Bill Ri c hardson, Chairman 

Subcommittee on Native American Affairs 

House Natural Resources Committee 

1522 Longworth House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Chairman Richardson, 

The Sport Fishing Institute {SFI) is pleased to 

provide tes timony on H. R. 2874 , the Indian Fish and 

Wildlife Resource Enhancement Act of 1993. Since 1949, 

SFI has served the fishery conservation needs of over 50 

million American anglers and the sport fishing industry. 

Recreational fishing generates approximately $24 billion 

in retail expenditures each year, supporting an estimated 

900,000 jobs. 

Enhancing tribal fish and wildlife management 

capacity will benefit anglers, tribes, and the resource . 

This bill contributes to improving management on tribal 

lands where federal support for fish and wildlife 

management has too often b een inadequate. We would 

particularly like to commend you on Section 9. The 

education assistance provided through this program would 

be extremely valuable in developing a corps of trained 

fisheries professionals for management of Indian fishery 

resources. 

However, the bill as written raises several concerns 

regarding alteration of existing jurisdictions and 

inappropriately expans ive mandates regarding management 

of fish and wildlife resources. Until these issues are 

addressed, we must withhold our support. We are eager to 

work with your staff on correcting these deficiencies and 

devising a strong, balanced bill for enhancing fisheries 

resources. 

SFI believes certain principles should be reflected 

throughout this bill. First, nearly all fisheries 

resources are s hared across jurisdictional lines; the 

concept of Indian fishery resources should reflec t this 

reality. As a consequence, appropriate fis heries 

management objectives would be to manage the resource for 

the sustainable b e nefit of the nation, in a manner 

consistent with tribal treaty rights. 

FISHERMAN Of T HE Y"tAR AWARD RECIPIE!'\"TS: PTuic.lo:nt o:ors~ Buh. 1980 • Stn.uur Mallolrtt ·\' ~ll p.J.nd S.,n,uor 

Joh"' lmM~.-. 1910 • franlo. Ounl.lt 1~ • Riy Scnr:. I~ • Ce~n! Otod: Y'tl#<- 1990 • Con Gowdy, 1991 • lol"' l. :>.1~ ;q.n • 

F. Du- H~n.on . 199J 
Chairman Bill Richardson 

October 22, 1993 

Page Two 

153 

Secondly, nothing in this bill should be construed as 

weakening the authority of federal and state environmental law 

including (but not limited to) the Endangered Species Act (and 

state endangered species laws), and the Marine Mammal Protection 

Act. We are confident that this was not your intent, but believe 

that clarifying language is necessary to ensure that the bill does 

not weaken important environmental laws. 

Further, nothing in this act should be used to alter existing 

state and federal jurisdictional authorities. The objective of 

this bill should be to enhance the management of tribal resources 

and to ensure management of other resources consistent with tribal 

rights. Existing state and federal jurisdictions for fish and 

wildlife management (e . g., on ceded territory or in navigable 

waters) should not be altered. On the other hand, if the bill is 

intended to alter these jurisdictions, we ask that you state so 

explicitly, so that open debate on that issue may begin. 

Encouraging greater cooperation and consultation between 

state, federal, local and tribal governments should be a central 

objective. We believe the greatest potential for enhancing 

fisheries resources lies through greater cooperation, not through 

preemption or alteration of existing authorities. 

Finally, tribal efforts to enhance recreational fisheries 

should be strongly encouraged. Tribal lands hold great fishery 

potential. According to a January 1993 SF! analysis, "Recreational 

Fisheries Development on Tribal Lands" (copy enclosed), tribal 

lands contain approximately 15,000 miles of perennial streams and 

over 1,600,000 acres of impoundments and natural lakes. The study 

found that 120 reservations hold recreational fishing potential for 

tribal and non-tribal anglers; 90 of these reservations currently 

allow for non-tribal fishing. In 1991, recreational anglers spent over four million days fishing on tribal lands, spending an 

estimated $202 million on license fees, fishing equipment and 

fishing-related services. Clearly, sport fishing offers great 

potential for tribal economic development. 

One example from the SF! report illustrates the value of 

tribal investment in sport fishing. The Eastern Band of Cherokees 

(located in North carolina) has calculated that recreational 

anglers spend about $3.5 million annually on the reservation. 

Angling fees of $367,000 covered all program costs except for fish 

hatchery worker salaries, which were paid by a Bureau of Indian 

Affairs grant. Thus, the tribe's benefit/cost ratio was nearly ten to one~ 
Chairman Bill Richardson 

October 22, 1993 

Page Three 

154 

Improving recreational fishing on tribal lands largely depends 

upon tribal actions and access decisions. However, the federal 

government also has an important role in providing technical and 

financial assistance. This bill should move forward in addressing 

that responsibility. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION RECOMMENDATIONS 

Although SF! supports the general thrust of this proposal, and 

has consistently advocated efforts to strengthen Indian fish and 

wildlife programs, we have concerns regarding expansive definitions 

and jurisdictional implications of the bill. Several 

recommendations are outlined below, section-by-section. 

Section 2 (2) and (3). By extending a trust responsibility to 

"protect, conserve and enhance Indian fish and wildlife resources" 

over all Federal agencies ar;d departments and requiring all Federal 

statutes to be interpreted accordingly, the bill throws into 

question the application of conservation law (including the 

Endangered Species Act, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act 

and the Marine Mammal Protection Act) . We urge clarification 

stating that the existing conservation laws shall have primacy, so that this bill does not inadvertently override decades of critical 

environmental laws. 

Section 4 (6). The bill defines "Indian fish and wildlife 

resource" as "any species of animal or plant life" located on 

reservation, to which tribes have treaty rights, or which tribes 

manage or "comanage." The use of the word species implies a much 

broader view of Indian fish and wildlife than we believe is 

appropriate or intended by the bill. The relevant resources are 

not entire species, but rather are those populations which are on 

reservation or for which tribes have treaty rights or management 

responsibility. By defining at the species level, the bill would 

indicate, for example, that all runs of chinook salmon (including 

those for which tribes have no rights or responsibilities) would be 

considered "Indian fish and wildlife." We suggest that the word 

"population" would be more appropriate in this definition. 

Section 5, general. We believe this section constitutes a 

massive and inappropriate preemption of existing state authority to 

manage fish and wildlife on navigable waters, title to which are in 

the state; on fee-patented inholdings; on ceded lands; and on land 

and water areas within reservations where the tribe through 

conveyance no longer has exclusive use and occupation. For 

example, the State of Wisconsin has twelve Indian reservations 

within its borders, with the northern one-third of the state 

considered ceded territory. H.R. 2874 would remove Wisconsin's 

authority to manage fisheries on these lands and transfer authority 
Chairman Bill Richardson 

October 22, 1993 

Page Four 

155 

to the Secretary of the Interior or, upon tribal request, the 

tribes. Such a preemption of authority would undermine the ongoing 

management of these resources for the sustai nable benefit of the 

state and nation consistent with treaty rights. 

Section 5 (a) (1) and (4). Given the shared nature of fish 

and wildlife resources, we believe that objectives (1) and (4) are 

not appropriate. Fish and wildlife resources must be managed 

comprehensively for the benefit of all citizens, with appropriate 

attention given Indian needs. Managing them "for the benefit of 

Indian tribes and their members" seems to place Indian interests 

(distinguished from treaty rights) above the larger public and 

resource interests. Moreover, given that selective production is 

an accepted management activity, it need not be mentioned here. We 

also believe that the concept of sustainability should be brought 

into the objectives. One possible means of addressing these 

concerns would be to delete (4) and amend (1) to read: 

(1) To protect, conserve, and enhance fish and wildlife 

resources and promote the development of these resources for 

the benefit of the nation, with appropriate attention given to the subsistence and economic needs of Indian tribes. 

This would assure consideration of tribal needs in the larger context of national management goals. We note that the fish and 

wildlife to be managed would be that currently under the 

secretary's (or tribal) jurisdiction. 

section 5 (b) (3). While SFI recognizes the value of 

contracting with tribes to plan, conduct and admini ster programs, 

we believe the phrasing used here is far too broad. The bill calls 

for contracting any program "which affects Indian fish and 

wildlife," which would include nearly anything the Department does, 

from the endangered species program to migratory bird management. 

While the Secretary should continue to be able to contract 

appropriate programs to tribes, this expansive requirement could 

lead to serious practical and legal difficulties. Consultation 

with tribes, as suggested under Section 6, would be a more appropriate means of assured involvement in these programs. 

Section 5 (c) (1). SFI is concerned that this language may 

authorize the Secretary to enforce tribal codes against non-tribal 

members outside of reservation boundaries (e.g., on ceded lands). 

Enforcing a code which may discriminate against non-Indians on 

ceded lands would constitute a violation of constitutional and 

civil rights. We urge clarification on this point to avoid this 

potential legal quagmire. 
Chairman Bill Richardson 

october 22, 1993 

Page Five 

156 

CONCLUSIONS 

As written, the Indian Fish and Wildlife Resource Enhancement 

Act of 1993 represents a significant preemption of existing 

jurisdictional authority. It may supersede vital conservation laws 

such as the Endangered Species Act. It includes expansive 

definitions which could be interpreted to require management of 

important shared resources for the benefit of one segment of the 

population. We urge the subcommittee to make changes responsive to 

these concerns, and focus on developing a positive bill to enhance 

the resource. SFI supports strengthening of tribal fishery 

management capacity and the further development of recreational 

angling on tribal lands, and hope that the subcommittee will 

present a bill which achieves those ends without undercutting 

existing conservation authority. We ask that these comments be 

included in the hearing record, along with a copy of the enclosed 

SFI report on tribal recreational fisheries. Thank you for this 

opportunity to comment. 

/nsp/ctfrJfl/r ichardson. o15 

Sincerely, 

._/ 1--,_ ,-', 

.. -....... '.'IL l::lt f(/2 .... '

~"\_J ~ --­

Norville s . Prosser 

Vice President 
157 

FVTVRE 21 

Good Fishing in the 21st Century 

A program of the Sport Fishing Institute- FisMmerica FoundationAmerican Fishing Tackle Manufacturers Association 

RECREATIONAL FISHERIES 

DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES 

ON TRIBAL LANDS 

Sport Fishing Institute 

January 1993 

This project was supported in part by a grant from the 

National Fish and Wildlife Foundation 

1010 Mass2chus~ns Avenue_ ~.W (Suire 320), Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 898-0770 

83-120 0 - 94 - 6 
158 

ACKNOWLEDGElVIENTS 

The FUTIJRE 21 staff would like to thank the following individuals, Tribal Nations and 

organizations, and federal agencies for their assistance in the preparation of this document: 

Gary L Ranke~ Program Manager for Fish, Wddlife and Recreation, Depamnent of 

Interior, Bureau of Fndian Affairs, Washington, D. C. 20245 

Richard L Baldes, Project Leader for the Lander Management Assistance Office, 

Department of Interior, U.S. Fish and Wddl~'e Service, Lander, WY 82520 

Mark Hecken, Native American Fish and Wddhfe Society, Broomfield, CO 80020 

Edward Almond and Canvll Parker, Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians of the 

Cherokee Indian Reservation, Cherokee, NC 28719 

David Conner, Red Lake Band of the Chippewa Indians of the Red Lake Indian 

Reservation, Red Lake, MN 56671 

Joseph DosSantos, Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Rat head Indian 

Reservation, Pablo, M1 59855 

Lynn Hatcher, Confederated Tribes and Bandsofthe Yakima Indian Nation, Yakima 

Indian Reservation, Toppenish, WA 98948 

KeUy Meyer, White Mountain Apache Tribe of the Fon Apache Indian Reservation, 

Whiteriver, AZ 85941 

Jack Piccolo, Summit Lake Paiute Tribe, Wmnemucca, NV 89445 

Kenneth Poynter, Passamaquoddy Tribe, Pleasant Poiru Reservation, Perry, ME 04667 

Steve Terry, Miccosukee Tribe of the Miccosukee Indian Reservation, Miam~ FL 33144 

Paul Wagner, Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of the Pyramid Lake Indian Reservation, 

Nixon, NV 89424 . 

George Waters, President, George Waters Consulting Service, Washington, D.C. 20001 

Larry Wawronowicz, Lac du Rambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of 

the Lac du Rambeau Indian Reservation, Lac du Rambeau, WI 54538 
159 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page 

Acknowledgments ........ . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . .. . . .......• .. .•... •... . . ... ... .. 

list of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii 

Introduction .... . .. .. .... .. . . . . . . . .... . ... . . . . ... . . .. . .. .... . . . ..• . . ... . 

Secrion I - Issues and Suggestions on Public Recreational Development 

on Tribal Lands ..... . .. . . .. .. ..... . . .. .. .. .. . .. . ... ... .... . ... . . 

Philosophy and Policy .. ... . .. .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . ..... .. . .. .. : . ... .. . . ... .. . 

Costs and Benefits ... . . : . ....... . .. .. .. . ... ... ...... . .. . . . .. .. ....... . 

Fishery Resources and Management ... . . . . ... . ...... . • ... . .... . . . . ... .. . 

Fisheries Development Process . .. . .. . . . .. . ..... . ...... .. .... .. . . .. ..... . 

Evaluate Existing Fishery Resources .. . . .. ... .... . . . ........ . ... .. . . .. .. . 

lnfrastrucrure Assessment ..... . ...... . . .. .. .. . ....•. ... .. ... .. . .. . ..... 

Market Assessment ... .. .... . . .......... .•...... . .. .. .... . .. . . .. ..... . 

Identifying Development Alternatives ... . .. . . .. . ... . . ... .......... . ..... . 

Developing a Work Plan ....... 7 . ..... . ......•...... . . .. . ••• . . . . ..•... . 

Implementation and Communication . . ....•... . . .. •... . ... . ... . .... . .. .. . 

Monitoring Success . . ........... . . . ........ . ..... . . . . ... ... .. . .. . .... . 

Section II- Current and Future Recreational Fishing Opportunities 

on Tribal Lands ... . ... .. .. ...... . ..... . ... . . .. . . . . .. .. . ... . . .. . 

Recreational Fishing Opportunities ..... . .............. . ....... . ... . .... . 

Tribal Case Studies ................ . . . .. : ... .... .. . . •. . . ..•... .. . . . . . . . 

= ~~g:~ ~~o&~es ·U~~;fu~d P~i ~t ~- ::: :: :::: :: :: :::: ::::: 

Top_ Pr =d L.;i~: N~~~d~· : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : - Lac· du Flambeau, Wisconsin .. . . ...... .. . ... . . . . . ..... . . .. .. . .. . . . - White Mountain Apac e, Arizona . . ... . . . . . ... . . . .. .. . . ... .. . . . . . . - Cherokee, North Carolma .. . .. ... .. .. .... .. .. .... .. ..... . ....... . 

- Flathead, Montana ..... . . . .. . . . ..... .. .. .... . .. .. ... . . . •........ - Y aki.ma, Washington ..... .. ....... ...... . ............ . .......... . 

Programs with Greatest Unrealized Potential .. .. .. . . . . ..• .. ..•. .. . .. .•. .. . 

~ ~1!f~g~~~r::: ~ ~: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~:: ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~: ~ ~: : ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~: ~ ~ ~ - Red Lake, Minnesota .................. . . . ....... .. .. . ...... . . . . . 

Conclusion ... .. . ................ . .... . .. .. ...... .. ..... .. . . ... . . . .. . . .. . 

Appendix A- Outdoor Public Recreation on Tribal Lands: 

Opporturtities and Program ................... . . . . . ... . . . . ... . . 

ii 

2 

2 

2 

3 

4 

4 

5 

6 

6 

7 

7 

8 

9 

9 

9 

10 

10 

11 

11 

12 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

16 

16 

16 

16 

17 

17 

19 
160 

RECREATIONAL FISHERIES DEVELOPME.t~1 

OPPORTU~1TIES ON TRIBAL LA1~1)S 

INTRomrmoN 

Recreational fishing in the United Slates involves over 50 million anglers who collectively 

fish over one-half billion days each year. These anglers spend over S25 billion annually on 

fishing-related equipment and services. To many co=unities, recreational fishing is an 

important component of the local e~onomy. Angle~; S.Shing local streams, rivers, and lakes 

spend money on food, lodging, equipment, and many other items in the local economy. 

Further, these anglers may also spend money for other activities they engage in besides 

fishing, such as boating, hiking, camging, liunting, and sightseeing. 

Lands of many Native American tribes off;~ numerous opportunities for non-tribal 

recreational fisheries development which would result in positive economic impaCts on 

tribal economies. Tribal lands contain an estimated 15,000 miles of perennial streams, 

986,000 acres of natural lakes and ponds, and another 630,000 acres of reservoirs and 

impoundments. Currently, 75 percent of the 120 reservations with recreational fisheries 

potential allow non-tnbal fishing. During 1991, recreational anglers spent over four million 

days fishing tnbal waters. They spent an estimated $202 million on license fees, fishing 

equipment and fishing-related services. This represents only a fraction of the economic 

benefits tnbal recreational fisheries programs are capable of receiving. Currently, most of 

this recreational fishing activity is limited in terms of the number of non-tnbal anglers 

allowed on reservation lands to fish; the number of streams, rivers and lakes anglers are 

allowed to access; and the awareness of non-tribal anglers about fishing opportunities 

available on tribal lands. Each of these limitations is an outgrowth of tribal philosophy and 

policy towards non-tnbal recreational fishing and may either reflect tribal artitudes toward 

recreational fishing or a lack of awareness and consideration of the social and economic 

benefits of a recreational fishing program. 

The purpose of this report is to provide an overview of the potential fo r recreational 

fisheries development on tribal lands. This is accomplished in the two sections of this 

report. Section I identifies and discusses the various philosophical, policy and programmatic 

issues in developing a recreational fishing program. It also provides some basic guidelines 

for planning and implementing a new program. Section II provides descriptions of tribal 

programs considered to be excellent examples of recreational fisheries development. It also 

describes several tribal programs which have extensive fisheries resources with the 

potential for development 
161 

SECTION I - ISSUES AND SUGGESTIONS ON PUBLIC 

RECREATIONAL FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT ON 

TRIBAL LANDS 

Recreation~ fisheries development is a directed effort by an organization to increase 

recreational fishing panicipation through the enhancement, management and marketing of 

local fishing opportunities. The purpose of this development is to diversify and increase 

local economic activity. Initiation of a recreational fisheries program. while valuable in and 

of itself. will yield greater benefits if it is complimented by the development of other related 

outdoor recreation programs such as camping, biking, boating and tourist activities. 

This development guide is designed to provide assistance in planning a tribal recreational 

fisheries program. ft presents the issues and concerns encountered in the recreational 

fisheries development process and uses examples from several tribal recreational fisheries 

programs to illustrate how the issue or concern can be dealt with. It should be recognized 

that each tribe has its own unique fishery resource base, tribal needs and priorities. Not all 

tribes may be interested in developing and managing their fisheries resources let alone 

allowing non-tribal anglers to use them. Clarification and resolution of these initial issues 

will set the course of events in the process of developing or enhancing tribal. recreational 

fishing programs. 

PHILOSOPHY AND POLICY 

The decision to devote tribal fisheries resources toward recreational fisheries development 

involves several basic considerations by tribal councils. First is the fundamental question of 

whether or not the tribe wants to allow non-tribal use of its fishery resources. This decision 

should be made within the context of existing use of fishery resources for co=ercial, 

subsistence, ceremonial and spiritual purposes and the attitudes of tribal members with 

regard to sharing their resources. This is a critical issue in that without acceptance by tribal 

members and a consensus decision to support recreational fisheries development by tribal 

leaders, any attempts to initiate a program will continually face a lack of support. 

COSTS AND BENEFITS 

When making the decision to develop a recreational fishing program. the compilation and 

analysis of social and economic costs and benefits is important. Social costs are generally 

attitudinal and perceptual in nature. Tribal members may not want non-Indians on their 

lands and using tribal resources. Some tribal members may feel that having outsiders on the 

reservation will impinge on their cultural heritage and change their way of life. Others may 

feel there is a greater opportunity for environmental degradation. Finally, some may feel 

that public use of their lands may violate the sanctity of spiritual areas. While these are 

legitimate concerns, little evidence of there occurrence has been found. In fact, most tribes 

actively cater to recreational and tourist markets to increase tribal economic activity. 

2 
162 

The social benefits as~ociated with tribal recreational fisheries programs are the same as 

with other recreational and tourism initiatives. A better understanding of the customs, 

culrure, history, values, and needs of Native American tribes and their members can be 

developed. This understanding can lead to greater trust. better working and improved social 

relations berween tribal members and individuals and co=unities outside the reservation. 

A fisheries program providing high quality and a diversity of fishing opportunities for 

non-tribal anglers will also benefit tribal anglers as well. 

Economic costs of implementing a recreational fishing program are those generally 

associated with program operation. This includes office space, fisheries biologists, 

enforcement officers and licensing clerks. Other costs involve the development and 

maintenance of fishing and boating facilities and services, and the costs of marketing and 

promoting the recreational fishing program to the public. 

Economic benefits associated with tribal recreational fishing programs amounted to more 

than $202 million nationally in 1991. These expenditures by non-tribal anglers at tribal 

businesses resulted in the creation of new jobs and the conversion of seasonal ones to 

full-time. Recreational fishing programs have helped diversify and stabilize tribal 

businesses. Revenues from license fees have been used to help fund other tribal programs. 

Finally, the establishment of a recreational fishing program has resulted in fisheries 

program grants from several different federal agencies. 

In terms of the benefit/cost ratio of a tribal recreational fisheries program, the Eastern 

Band of Cherokees has calculated that-recreational anglers spend about S3.5 million 

annually on the reservation. Angling fees of $367,000 covered all program costs except for 

fish hatchery worker salaries which were paid by a Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) grant. 

Thus, the benefit/cost ratio was about 10:1. 

An additional consideration needing addressing is the relationship of a recreational fishing 

program to the larger tribal economic development plan. Recreational fisheries 

development entails the need for support facilities and services ranging from boat access, 

guide service and lodging to restaurants, fishing tackle suppliers and grocery stores. These 

facilities and services may exist to varying degrees. However, they need to be evaluated with 

regard to their proximity to fishing and access sites, and camping and lodging locations. The 

lack of essential facilities and services would necessitate an investment in developing or upgrading facilities to meet angler needs, to ensure that high quality angling experiences 

are available, and to realize the full range of economic benefits. 

FJSHERY RESOURCES AND MANAGEMENT 

Another consideration is an assessment of whether or not there are sufficient fisheries 

resources to continue to meet tribal needs and acco=odate non-tribal recreational 

fisheries development. This issue can be addressed from rwo perspectives. Initially, there 

could be surplus production of fish to allow for non-tribal fisheries programs. On the other 

hand, tribal fisheries resources may currently be fully utilized. However, through more 

intensive management (harvest regulation, etc.) or a reallocation from commercial or 

subsistence uses to recreational uses, a recreational fisheries program could be developed. 

3 
163 

A final consideration is the issue of the costs of actively managing tribal fisheries resources 

to provide the economic benefits desired. Actively managing fisheries resources requires an 

investment in personnel to collect the biological and behavioral information needed for 

protection, enhancement, and management. Much of this information may be collected 

through cooperative agreements with state or federal fisheries agencies or under grants 

from the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) or BIA Management requires the 

development of an effective fishing code and regulations which are built upon sound 

scientific information and support the management goals of the recreational fishing 

program. Part of the management of fisheries involves an enforcement pro grain to ensure 

that regulations are followed. 

Of course, any regulatory and enforcement progra,m needs to be complimented by an 

educational program that gives an understanding of why regulations are necessary and the 

benefits resulting from a well managed and regulated fishery. These benefits should include 

those accruing to tribal members from sustained fisheries production and to the tribe in 

general from the economic growth that will result. ·· 

To pay for some of the management costs associated with tribal fisheries development, the 

tribal council will need to consider licensing of non-ln<lian anglers. Pricing of licenses 

should reflect the unique fishing opportunities being offered by the tribe and the level of 

management activity associated with the recreational fishing program. Also of importance 

here is the realization that non-In<lian anglers may spend money on services in support of 

their fishing or on other activities. This is an important consideration in determining 

whether tribal fisheries programs will be supported fully or in part from license fees. 

If the tribe allows tribal members to fish commercially on tribal waters, then co=ercial 

and recreational fisheries management activities should be combined under one 

management agency. Again, the importance of commercial, recreational, subsistence and 

ceremonial uses of tribal fisheries resources needs to be considered when determining 

funding for tribal fisheries programs and setting fishing license fees. 

FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT PROCESS 

Creating or expanding a non-tribal recreational fishing program entails several steps which 

will lead to a solid program capable of providing long-term benefits to the tribe. These 

steps are outlined below and culminate with the development of a work plan and program 

evaluation. Planning for non-tribal recreational fishing programs should be made within the 

context of the overall tribal fisheries program. This will ensure that fisheries conservation 

and management goals are achieved and the needs of tribal members are met. 

EVALUATE EXISTING FISHERY RESOURCES 

The initial phase of any development initiative is an assessment of the fishery resources 

available to the tribe. This resource assessment consists of five components: 

1. Current fisheries population levels. 

2. Historical fisheries population trends. 

4 
164 

3. Annual fishing use and fisheries yield estimates. 

4. Opportunities for enhancement. 

5. Opportunities for providing diverse and unique fishing experiences. 

The first step in evaluating existing fisheries resources is to conduct an inventory of all 

lakes, ponds, rivers and streams to identify fish species composition and population levels. 

This information will identify which water bo'dies have fish populations capable of 

supporting recreational fisheries. Inventory information is the foundation from which the 

resource evaluation will be made and may be available from state or federal fisheries 

agencies if not collected by the mbe. 

The second task in the evaluation is determining historical fisheries population trends. 

Knowing if fisheries populations have been increasing, relatively stable, or declining is 

important for determining the potential for recreational fishing use. 

Estimating current fishing use and the harvest or yield of tribal fisheries is necessary in 

order to determine the effects of use and harvest on fish populations. This information is 

critical for assessing how much additional fishing pressure can be allowed without adversely 

affecting fish populations. 

Once fishery resources have been inventoried, population trends assessed, and use and 

harvest levels estimated, opportunities for enhancing fisheries resources can be considered. 

Enhancement can take many forms and range from habitat improvement and stocking to 

removal of undesirable species and the introduction of spon fishing species. Each 

enhancement option needs to be evaluated for its impact on existing fish populations and 

whether it will help in meeting program goals. 

The final step in the fisheries assessment process is to identify what types ofrecreational 

fishing experiences can be provided by tribal fisheries. These alternatives could range 

between wannwater and coldwater fisheries, to a diverse array of opportunities such as 

trophy, catch-and-release, flyfishing, wilderness, put-and-take and others. Based upon 

information from the resource assessment, infrastructure assessment, and market 

assessment, recreational fishing program goals can be developed which are most suitable 

for economic development and which will meet the needs of non-tribal anglers. 

INFRASTRUCUJRE ASSESSMENT 

The infrastrucrure for recreational fishing consists of those services and facilities necessary 

to support fishing activity. Services may include food, lodging, fishing-related equipment, 

guides, boat rental, and bait among others. Provision of these services is essential for 

capturing the economic benefits from a recreational fishing program. An inventory of 

existing services and their proximity to fishing areas is important for detennining where the 

development of new services is needed or for enhancement of existing services. 

A facilities inventory is also important. Boat launching and mooring, trails, campgrounds, 

restrooms and other facilities which facilitate access to fishing areas are essential for 

5 
165 

making fishing opponunities accessible to. anglers. Further, c:unping facilities are 

particularly important if anglers are to remain more than one day in the area. The longer 

anglers stay in the area, the more money they are likely to spend. 

Existing facilities should be evaluated and new development and enhancement 

opportunities should be identified. Once the recreational fishing opportunities the tribe 

wants to provide are determined, then specific recommendations for development and 

enhancement can be identified. 

MARKET ASSESSMENT 

This assessment is a critical component of the overall development process. If the tribe 

does not have sufficiently high quality or unique fishing opportunities or if there is not a 

large regional population to draw from, then the chances of attracting the desired number 

of anglers annually to fish on the reservation may be quite low. Therefore, it is crucial that a 

realistic appraisal of fishing opportunities and the regional fishing market be made. 

This appraisal should consist of three components. First, an analysis of the regional 

population needs to be made. This information should include residence distance from 

tribal fishing areas, current fishing participation rates, annual number of fishing trips, 

average driving distance to current fishing locations, and information on income levels and 

other recreational interests. 

Second, competing fishing opponunities within the region need to be examined. This 

information should cover both warmwater and coldwater fishing and focus on competitive 

opportunities that could be provided by the tribe. This analysis will help identify unique 

opportunities the tnbe could provide and capitalize on. Additionally, understanding 

competing opponunities provides a good basis for marketing and promoting tribal fishing 

opportunities. 

The final component is identifying the fishing preferences of anglers in the market area. 

Here consideration of warmwater and coldwater fishing needs to be made, but information 

on angler desires for trophy, put-and-take, catch-and-release, flyfishing and other types of 

fishing is very important and ties directly to the fisheries resource opponunities identified 

previously. 

IDENTIFYING DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES 

Information on the regional population, competing opportunities, and angler preferences 

can be used to make an assessment of angler demand for various fishing opportunities tbe 

tribe might provide. This infonnation can then be integrated with tbe resource and 

infrastructure inventories so that alternative development options can be identified. 

Consideration of the alternatives should be based on availability of fishery resources, the 

urgency of implementing the program, and the availability of staff and financial resources to 

initiate the program. 

6 
166 

Selection of the best alternative(s) s_hould be based upon: (1) which alternative is least 

expensive; (2) which would attract the desired angler numbers; (3) which would provide the 

most benefits to the tribe; ( 4) which would provide the most long-lasting benefits; and ( 5) 

which best fits within tribal management constraints and protects the resource. The 

importance of each of these considerations will vary from one tribal organization to the 

next and among individuals within an organization. Thus, they should be given weights to 

help guide evaluations of alternatives. These weights should be detennined by their 

importance to the members of the tribal organization. 

DEVELOPING A WQRK PLAN 

The final step of developing a work plan is crucial in developing a recreational fishing 

-program. It establishes clear guidelines for initiating and carrying out the program, defines 

organizational and individual roles in development of the program, and establishes 

·minimum standards for achieving program success. The proper work plan includes goals, 

objectives, and tasks. 

Program goals and objectives should be individually set by each tribal organization. These 

goals should reflect both the economic development and recreational fishing participation 

aspects of the program. AgoaJ is the ideal being worked toward such as increased business 

activity, greater diversity in tribal businesses, and quality _trophy fishing. An objective is 

something real you hope to accomplish, which will bring you closer to your goal: 10,000 

recreational fishing licenses sold, 25 percent increase in business sales. A task is an 

agreement that says who will do what, by when, using which resources to get the task 

completed. An example might be: construct a boat ramp on Antelope Lake within one year 

using tribal development funds. Examples of specific goals and objectives of the non-tribal 

recreational fishing program might be: 

Goal: 

Objective a: 

Objective b: 

Objective c: 

To increase economic activity of tribal businesses through non-tribal 

recreational fishing. 

To establish a year-round non-tribal recreational fishing program. 

To provide diverse, quality fishing opportunities which meet the needs of' 

recreational anglers. 

To provide lodging, camping, and other suppon services to retain anglers 

in the area for a minimum of two days. 

IMPLEMENTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS 

A clearly established communications network is essential to successful program 

implementation. A number of individuals will be working on various tasks of the program. 

Communication on several levels is a key to keep program implementation moving. The 

flow of information within the tribal organization is very imponant. Frequent contact 

among tribal council members and fisheries program staff will keep everyone up to date on 

activities. 

7 
167 

The entire tribal community should be kept informed of project activities and 

accomplishments. Periodic meetings, anicles in tribal newspapers, and personal contacts 

will keep community members informed and supponive of the recreational fisheries 

program. 

Communications with state and federal agencies is very imponanL Besides being sources of 

technical assistance, these agencies can provide funding for parts of the program. 

Participation in conferences, workshops, and training programs is a valuable way to leam 

about funding programs and what other tribal fisheries programs are doing. 

MONJTORING SUCCESS 

Tribal communities are constantly in a state of change. In order to reach tribal recreational 

fisheries program goals, it is imponant that leaders have some way to monitor and assess 

the change that is occurring and relate it to the goals and objectives of the recreational 

fishing program. At the end of each year, or some other time period, program leaders 

should evaluate how well they have met their objectives, modify current objectives, and set 

new ones. Questions such as: Which taSks were completed? Which objectives were 

attained? What should be done differently next time? Who helped make things happen? 

What resources were used and who provided them? These questions will not only provide a 

means to gauge accomplishments, they are a means to recognize program staff and 

volunteers for their time and effons, and to challenge the tribal community and staff to 

meet new and continuing objectives. 

8 
168 

SECTION II- CURRE~! A. '-IT> FUTURE 

RECREATIONAL FISIDNG OPPORTUNITIES ON 

TRIBAL LANDS 

To obtain estimates on the total amount of fishable waters on tribal lands and fully identify 

tribes with existing and potential recreational fishing opporrunities, the FUTURE 21 staff 

contacted representatives from the Native American Fish and Wildlife Society (NAFWS), 

USFWS and BIA Obtaining reliable estimates on the total amount of fishable waters, 

however, was extremely difficult since the methods used to measure or quantify these 

waters vary widely from tribe to tribe and from agency to agency. The most reliable and 

current of these estimates, obtained from BIA, indicate that as of 1991 tribal lands 

encompassed 91 million acres of land and 1.6 million surface lcres of water. Broken down 

funher by type of water body, natural lakes and ponds coostirute 985,591 surface acres and 

reservoirs and impoundments comprise 629,750 surface acres. ·Perennial streams amount to 

15,154 miles. A:, seen on Table 1, the total number of Indian Reservations in the 

contiguous 48 states is approximately 350. Of these, 120 possess at least potential fishery 

resources. 

TABLE 1: ESTIMATED TRIBAL FISHERIES IN THE CONTIGUOUS 

48 STATES 

Total No. of Tribes 

Tribes with Fisheries Resources 

Tribes with Fishery Programs 

Which Allow for Some Level 

of Public Participation 

Tribes with Recreational 

Fisheries Potential 

RECREATIONAL FISffiNG OPPORTUNITIES 

350 

120 

90 

30 

The number of tribes which conduct recreational fisheries programs or have the potential 

to provide recreational fishing opportunities were a little easier to obtain. The most recent 

data from BIA (December 1992) report that 90 of the 210 tribes with fisheries resources 

9 
169 

either conduct non-tribal recreational fisheries programs or provfde non-tribal recreational 

fishina opportunities at some level (Table 1 and Appendix A). It is estimated that an additional 120 tribal reservations bave the potential (in terms of fishery resource holdings) 

to provide non-tribal recreational fishing opportunities. 

Based on information obtained from BIA, USFWS, and the Bureau of Land Management, 

FU11JRE 21 staff has roughly estimated that recreational fishing activity on the 90 tribal 

reservations that pro~de non-tribal recreational fishing opportunities, amounted to 

approximately 4,038,353 angler days in 1991. (One angler day being equivalent to four 

hours of accrued fishing activity). It was further estimated that this activity accounted for 

$203 million in direct angling-related expenditures and a total economic impact of $314 

million in 1991. Based on the FU11JRE 21 estimates, recreational fishing on tribal lands 

supported approximately 6,534 jobs, resulting in $3 million in state income tax revenues and 

nearly $10 million in s~te sales tax receipts for that same year. 

TRmAL CASE STIJDIES 

Of the 90 tribal reservations identified to provide public fishing. FUTURE 21 staff 

identified a total twenty tribal reservations to investigate further. These reservations were identified based on whether they were determined to possess the most progressive or advanced recreational fisheries programs, or had the greatest potential to develop or further enhance their recreational fisheries programs. The specific criteria used to identify 

the programs (10 model programs and 10 tribal entities with the greatest potential) are as follows: 

TOP!l\10DEL PROGRAMS 

• Does the tribal entity bave active/progressive fisheries and/or wildlife programs? 

• Does the tribal entity have varied program staff (i.e., fishery biologists, technicians, 

economists)? 

• Does the tribal entity communicate and work with the BIA, NAFWS, as well as other 

local, state, regional or federal agencies? Is the tribe responsive to these other entities? 

• Has the tribal entity incorporated, or have plans to incorporate, a strong management 

and research agenda into its fishery program (i.e., fishing regulations, license or fee 

system, hatcheries, monitoring or research priorities, etc ... )? 

• Does the tribal entity's fishery program receive significant fishing pressure? If so, has 

the program taken full advantage of a license/fee system whereby the money derived 

from this system would be fed back into the fishery program? 

• Does the tribal entity aggressively promote the recreational fishing opportunities that are available on its lands? 

• Does the tribal entity welcome continued and/or increased fishing pressure and 

opportunities on its lands? 

10 
170 

PROGRAMS WITH THE GREATEST UNREALIZED POTENTIAL 

• Does the tribal entity have abundant, but not fully utilized. natural resources and are 

these resources desirable to recreational anglers (i.e., large amount of fishable acreage, 

desirable recreational species)? 

• Does the tribal entity have the desire and will to increase non-tribal recreational fishing 

opportunities on its lands? 

• Does the tribal entity possess the staff or the resources to design and implement a 

fisheries management program? 

• Does the tribal entity require increased funding to begin an active fisheries program? 

• Does the tribal entity require increased promotional efforts to increase awareness of its. 

fisheries program? 

With these criteria/questio!l5 in mind, FUI1JR.E 21 staff, in co!15ultation with 

representatives from the BIA identified Colville (WA), Leech Lake (MN), Navaho (AZ), 

Cherokee (NC), Flathead (Mf), Yakima (WA), Pyramid Lake (NV), Lac du Flambeau 

(WI), White Mountain Apache (AZ) and Grand Portage (MN) as the ten most progressive 

recreational fisheries programs. The ten programs with the greatest potential were 

identified as Metalkatla (AL), Mission Indian Reservatio115 (CA), Hualapai (AZ), 

Menomenee (WI), Jicarilla (NM), Passamaquoddy (ME), Summit Lake (NV), Tulc River 

(CA), Miccosukee (FL) and Red Lake (MN). 

Eleven of the twenty identified tribal reservatio!l5 were successfully contacted and surveyed 

with regard to their fisheries management progr= and practices, fishing pressure and 

amount of fishable water. The remaining nine tribal reservations were contacted repeatedly 

via telephone, mail and FAX with no respo!15e or feed-back. In light of this lack of success 

with the remaining tribes and the exte!l5ive information we had obtained from the other 11 

tribal reservations, FUI1JRE 21 staff decided to focus on the information collected to date. 

A brief summation of those interviews follow: 

TOP PROGRAMS 

PYRAMID LAKE, NEVADA - The fisheries program on Pyramid Lake was established in 

1952 by the State of Nevada. Control of the program was assumed by the Paiute Tribe in 

1974. The fisheries program currently employs 29 individuals, four of which are fisheries 

biologists or technicians. The program included a fee system with fees set at $6 for a daily 

fishing pass and $32 for a seasonal pass (applicable to non-tribal members only). Total 

revenue from fishing permit sales over the last five years has been: $257,437 in 1987, 

$219,172 in 1988,$198,754 in 1989,$295,977 in 1990, and $230,491 in 1991. 

The Pyramid Lake Fisheries Program is currently funded by a federally-established trust 

fund ($25 million invested-program) and managed by the interest derived from the fund. 

The Tribe itself, maintai!l5 four fish hatcheries: three hatcheries are used to raise Lahontan 

cutthroat trout, and one is used to raise resident Cui-ui, an endangered species. The Tribe 

manages 100,000 surface acres of Pyramid Lake. The most sought after fish by anglers on 

the Lake is the Lahontan cutthroat trout. The reservation holds the world record for this 

11 
171 

fish at 41 pounds, caught in 1925. Pyramid Lake is open from October 1 C:Jugh June 30. 

No commercial fishing is permitted. Fish must be at least 19 inches to be ~t by anglers. 

There is a two fish limit The reservation maintains two "full hook-up ' ~ounds with a 

tO!al of 82 sites. Primitive camping is permitted in all areas of the reserva:::un. Boat access 

to Pyramid Lake is provided by five boat lanes. 

Promotion of angling opportunities on the reservation is sought through 6: distribution of 

brochures, radio spots, press releases, and newsletter.;. Current obstacles ::::at the program 

faces include the need for expanded boat access and adequate beach fao!'-'oes. The Tribe is 

currently looking into ways to fulfill these needs. The Tribe also plans to C=elop a stronger 

marketing plan. 

lAC DU FLAMBEAU, WISCONSIN- This tribal fisheries program was =blished in 

1936 with assistance from the USFWS and the State of Wisconsin.. The Tr-.:.">e currently 

employs 25 people in its narural resources department, eight of which are 5;h biologists or 

technicians. Fisheries resources include 20,000 surface acres on over 100 ~es and more 

than 34 miles of streams. 

No fee system exists for the tribal fisheries program since the Tnbe's juris.5c::ion is 

restricted to only tnbal memben. The state bas jurisdiction over regulati= and requires 

only a Wisconsin fishing license to fish these water.;. Non-Native Americ:r:s are bound by 

state regulations and' catch limits. The state receives from S85,000 ro SU:..::VO per year from 

fishing license sales on tribal lands. The fisheries program is funded pa.rt:iz.:y by the Tribe, 

with the difference made up by BIA 638 contracts. 

Ninety-eight percent of all fishing on tribal waters is non-Native Ameri=. There is no 

commercial fishing but subsistence fishing occurs in the form of gill-ne!ti.r:;i; for whitefish 

and spearing of walleye since 1984. With BIA assistance, the Tribe ope~ a large 

hatchery for walleye, muslde, smallmouth, and black crappie. Most co=c-,jy sought fish 

include hatchery fish and brown, brook and rainbow trout which are farmC.: on the 

reservation. 

It is estimated that 2,500 recreational anglers come to the reservation an=ily. The Tribe 

operates a 72 pad recreational vehicle campground and provides boat ac= to 10 percent 

of its lakes (concentrated on the main fishing lakes). No promotional pro~ ex.ists for 

recreational fishing and none is planned for the future. 

WHITE MOUNTAIN APACHE, ARIZONA- Fisheries work at White Mc=tain began in 

the 1920s with a federal fish stocking and enforcement program. The fish =:rchery on the 

reservation, Williams Creek, was constructed in 1939. Tribal licenses were :SUed as early as 

1953, indicating that the White Mountain Game and Fish Depanment ba; ·::.een in existence 

nearly 40 years. This Department has changed substantially over the cour>e of its existence 

as it has taken over both federal and state duties. 

Currently the White Mountain Game and Fish Department manages app:-::rirnately 

one-third of the total coldwater fisheries in the state of Arizona. With on.i" :me full-time 

fisheries manager (biologist) the Department has jurisdiction over approbtely 400 miles 

of streams, 1700 surface acres of coldwater lakes, and 200 surface acres oi .-arm water 

lakes. 

12 
172 

The fisheries program includes a fee system. Non-tribal members pay fees of $5 per day or 

$80 per year for general fishing. General licenses allow angling in all general access waters 

on the reservation. Both tribal and non-tribal members must pay an fee to fish on restricted, 

trophy trout lakes. Fees for restricted areas range from $15 per day on two lakes limited to 

20 anglers daily, to $300 per day for personal access to one coldwater lake. 

The Game and Fish Department is provided with approximately half of the output of two 

resident USFWS fish hatcheries free of charge. Stocked fish include Apache, brown, brook, 

and rainbow trout, largemouth bass, channel catfish, and Arctic grayling. The fish most 

commonly sought by White Mountain anglers include Apache and rainbow trout. The 

fisheries program on the reservation is managed by the Tribe in cooperation with the 

USFWS. Regulations and catch limits are established by the Trioe. 

The Tribe maintains data on economic impact of its fish and wildlife programs. White 

Mountain Apache estimates that for each recreational visit it receives, $30 is spent per 

family per day on the reservation and the same amount is spent per family per day in 

surrounding communities, excluding lodging. Data for sales of all types of fishing permits 

indicate that in the 1990-1991 fishing season, license sales accounted for $521,857 in 

revenue to the Tribe. Other funds available for the fisheries program include $60,000 per 

year provided by BIA for the purpose of fisheries management. 

The White Mountain Apache Tril5e Fort Apache Indian Reservation maintains an 

abundance of =psites and boat access points to the larger lakes on the reservation. 

Brochures, maps, information booths at recreation shows, and a weekend open to outdoor 

writers are some of the promotional activities developed by the Tn"be. Possible 

improvements toward maximizing benefits received from the fisheries program include 

increased marketing and promotional efforts and increased expenditures on facilities such 

as boat ramps and showers. 

CHEROKEE, NORTH CAROLINA- The fisheries program of the Eastern Band of 

Cherokees has been in place since 1957. The program is an excellent example of a 

self-sustained recreational fisheries program. Initially assisted by BIA in the funding for 

construction of its only fish hatchery, the Cherokee Fish and Game Program and the Tribal 

Hatchery Program are now almost entirely funded by the Tribe itself. Only the salaries 

involved in the management of the hatchery are received from BIA All other program 

aspects are funded using revenues generated from the sale of fishing permits. 

Fishery resources on the Cherokee Reservation include 30 miles of streams and 5.7 surface 

acres of fishable water on 3 ponds. The fisheries program currently employs ten full-time 

employees including three game wardens. The Tribe develops and manages the entire 

program with occasional assistance from the USFWS on such projects as fishery 

assessments. 

The primary species raised and stocked by the Tribal Hatchery is the rainbow trout 

although stocking of brook and brown trout is also practiced. The reservation obtains a vast 

majority of its trout eggs for its hatchery from the USFWS. A small amount are purchased 

from commercial organizations. Testament to the success of the hatchery program are the 

two state records caught on Tribal lands for brook and brown trout. 

13 
173 

The current fe e structure in place at Cherokee sets permit prices for non-tribal membe.r use 

as follows: S4 for a one-day license; 58 for a two-day permit; S 11 for a three-day permit; S 15 

for a five-day permit; and $150 for a season permit. Total license sales for fiscal year 1992 

amounted to 68,728 total permits sold (the vast majority of which were one-day permits) for 

a total permit-sale revenue of 5360,290. The Tribe estimates that the reservation realized 

nearly 80,000 angler days in fiscal year 1992. 

There is no boat access to fishable waters 011 the reservation. Much of the angling is 

accomplished from stream-banks and pond shores. An abundance of camping facilities 

including a Campgrounds Of America (land leased from the Tribe) exist on the reservation 

to ensure anglers a place to stay. 

The Eastern Band of Cherokee have estimated that recreational anglers and their families 

are responsible for a total economic impact pf S3.5 million annually on the reservation. To 

maintain such a substantial economic impact the Tribe seeks publicity for its recreational 

fishing opportunities through various mechanisms. 'The Tribe produces a brochure on its 

recreational opportunities which is dismbuted throughout North Carolina and surrounding 

states. Free-lance writers have helped with promotion as has tribal participation in various 

trade shows. 

FlATHEAD, MONTANA- Until the 1980s the fisheries on F1athead Reservation were 

managed by the USFWS, BIA. and the State of Montana. The Salish and Kootenai Tribes 

established their own fisheries management program in 1985. The program oversees nearly 

70,000 acres of lakes and over 400 miles of streams open to both tribal and non-tribal 

members and has become one of the most progressive tribal fisheries programs in the U.S. 

1n 1983, the Tribes received a contract from the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) to 

conduct research on the impacts of Kerr Dam on the lower F1athead River system. The 

BP A study provided much of the baseline information needed by the tribal program to 

make fisheries management decisions. 1n 1987, the Tribal Council adopted, by resolution, 

the Fisheries Management Plan of the F1athead Indian Reservation. Today, the Tribal 

Fisheries Program, currently funded entirely by the Tribes, has a staff of three professional 

fisheries biologists, one contract professional fisheries biologist, two full-time fisheries 

technicians and several seasonal fisheries technicians working to re~tore, protect, and 

enhance the reservation's fishery resources. 

The program's activities include research, regulation, planning, and plan implementation. 

Current work includes researching the physical and biological characteristics of Ninepipe 

and Kickinghorse Reservoirs. Surveys are also being conducted to determine the total 

number of fish harvested, number of angler days expended, catch rates, and seasons of use. 

The program does not maintain or manage a hatchery of its own. Approximately 90 percent 

of the reservation's fisheries are naturally reproduced. The Tribes spend $13,000 annually 

for USFWS produced rainbow trout to be planted in irrigation reservoirs for recreational 

harvest. Other species of importance to F1athead anglers include bass, lake trout, yellow 

perch, and cutthroat trout. 

Fishing regulations on all tribal waters are consistent with state regulations. Based on their 

own research, the program's fisheries biologists make annual recommendations to the 

14 
174 

Tribal Council on changes to the reservation's fishing regulations. Recent examples of 

changes reco=ended and accepted include opening the lower Flathead River to 

year-round fishing and closing the fishing for bull trout in all waters other than Flathead 

Lake. These changes were designed to increase fishing opponunities where possible 

without harming the resource, and to protect fisheries which are in danger. 

A comprehensive fee system is in place for non-tribal member angling. Both hunting and 

fishing require the purchase of a $6 annual or $4 three-day reservation use permit. Fishing 

s=ps are $12 annually and $6 for a three-day pass. To further enhance the reservation's 

fisheries no co=ercial fishing is allowed. 

Flathead's fisheries have attained a high profile through multi-media promotional efforts. 

The program has developed a promotional brochure and a detailed map with all regulations 

listed. Regional newspapers and a network of outdoor writers are also used to tout the 

.. program as well as participation in local spon shows and a poster presentation. The 

reservation has the capacity to sustain the visitation it solicits because of its size (1.2 million 

acres) and the fact that it maintains an abundance of camping and boating access facilities. 

In su=ary, the Flathead Indian Reservation currently has an active and professional 

fisheries management program working on a wide spectrum of fisheries management 

activities. Angling activity on the reservation has its economic rewards. For 1991, a year in 

which no three-day passes were issued, 12,529 annual fishing stamps were sold with 

Reservation Use Permits, representing $225,522 in fishing license revenues alone. 

YAKIMA, WASHINGTON -This reservation is siruated on 13 million acres, and its total 

ceded area encompasses one quarter of the total area of the State of Washington. 

Developed with the aid of the USFWS, the Yakima Fisheries Program was established in 

1977 through a Tribal Council Resolution. The program, administered by the Tribal Fish 

and Wildlife Council, currently employs 20 seasonal individuals and 55 permanent 

individuals (15 fishery biologists and 30 technicians). Basically, the fisheries program staff 

serves as a technical advisory group to the Tribal Fish and Wildlife Council. To date, the 

Tribal Council has been successful at not only managing the reservations fisheries but also 

at seeking program enhancement through active relationships with federal agencies such as 

the USFWS, BIA, Washington State Departments of Fisheries and Wildlife, and with local 

utility companies. 

Fishable waters managed by the program include theY akirna River which is open 

year-round, and a number of lowland ponds and high-mountain lakes which are open from 

June 15 through October 15. A fee system is in place with fees set at $4 for a daily pass 

(High Mountain Lakes), $25 for a season license (lowland bunting and fishing). 

Approximate annual income from license sales is $100,000. This revenue along with Tribe's 

earnings from Jogging is used to fund the fisheries program. 

Subsistence fishing is permitted for tribal members in the form of dip-netting for salmon 

and steelbead. Major target species of non-tribal anglers include largemouth bass, 

whitefish, steelhead, eastern brook and rainbow trout, salmon, panfish and catfish. 

Under contract to the Tribal Council, the Washington Department of Fisheries currently 

raises and stocks 30,000 eastern brook and rainbow trout per year. Half of these fish are 

15 
175 

planted in waters open to the public, half are in restricted tribal waters. The Tribe is 

currently working with the BP A for a $25 to $45 million contract to develop a hatchery for 

salmon, steelhead, and trout one year from now. 

The Tribe provides eight law enforcement officers to uphold tribal regulations. Drift boats 

and sleds are permitted on the Yakima River and outboards are restricted to small engines. 

Promotion of the fishing opportunities on the reservation is provided by newspaper, radio, 

and television spots and by word-of-mouth. There is potential for the Tribe to increase 

boater access and increase awareness of its current fi.shin& opportunitiCti. However, the 

Tribe also wishes to restrict development on the reservation. A pamphlet will be available 

in the near furure. 

PROGRAMS WITH GREATEST QNREALIZED POTENTIAL 

PASSAMAQUODDY, MAINE- Fishery resources of the Passamaquoddy Reservation 

include approximately 132,000 surface acres of fishable waters. The fisheries program is 

small and currently still in its developmental stages. True responsibility of the program has 

been limited to the monitoring of fisheries and determination of fishery status. In the 

future, the Passamaquoddy will attelllpt to lobby BIA, USFWS, and the U.S. Forest Service 

for funds to use foe conservation training. 1bis funding would facilitate the establishment of 

a conservation oriented program allowing the monitoring aspect to serve as a source of 

information by which fo manage. To that end, the Tnbe recently formed a narural resources 

committee. 

SUMMIT LAKE, NEVADA - The fisheries program at Summit Lake Reservation is 

currently very limited. No recreational fishing is allowed and only limited tribal fishing for 

subsistence occurs. The primary.species sought at Summit Lake is the Lahontan cutthroat 

trout. The potential exists for a recreational fishery centered on this species. Discussion on 

opening the lake to non-tribal recreational anglers has already begun. A fee system to 

accompany such a move has been proposed and is under review. Throughout the discussion 

tribal leaders have stressed their concern about the status of fish stocks. Discussions are 

almost certain to lead to a hearing on the topic of a recreational fishing program. 

The Tribe bas just recently received funding from the BIA to renovate its fish hatchery. The 

program's fisheries director is planning to begin several research projects on the lake. 

TULC RIVER, CALIFORNIA- There currently exists no fishery program on the Tulc River 

Reservation. Fishing on the reservation is limited to recreational angling by tribal members 

only. There are currently no plans to establish a program, recreational or otherwise. 

MICCOSUKEE, FLORIDA- From an organizational perspective, the fisheries program at 

the Miccosukee Reservation should be mentioned among the top programs. Although the 

program is not a tremendous generator of revenue, the management of the reservation's 

fishery resources for long-term sustainable recreational use is commendable. A fee 

structure is in place with fees for non-residents set at $250 a year to fish and set-up camp. 

The number of spaces available for campsites is very limited and there are currently 40 

people on a waiting list. The fisheries director stresses the desire of the Tribe not to expand 

recreational fishery beyond what already exists because they are concerned about proper 

management and conserving the integrity as well as the magnitude of the resource. 

16 
176 

Species most often targeted on the reservation include largemouth bass and panfish. The 

Tribe maintains both a fisheries and a wildlife department and has its own regulations in 

place, modeled after the State of Florida's. 

RED L\KE, MINNESOTA- The Red Lake Reservation includes in its fisherv resources 

the fisheries of 25 lakes with a total fishable acreage of 285,000 surface acres. 'The Tribe 

manages its own hatchery for the production of walleye and northern pike. Red Lake is one 

of only rwo closed reservoirs in the U.S. and therefore maintains its own set of regulations. 

A co=ercial gillnet fishery for walleye has been in existence since 1917 and other 

subsistence fishing is allowed as well. 

With regards to recreational fishing some 200 angling permits were issued in 1991. A fee 

system is in place for non-tribal members with fees of: $20 for a one-day permit; $30 for a 

rwo-day permit; $50 for a one-week permit; and $100 for a full~easoii license. It is 

estimated that 75 percent of licenses issued are seasonal and most of these are given 

complimentary. · 

CONCLUSION 

This report has identified the potential for substantial social and economic benefits that can 

be accrued by tribes through the development and management of non-Indian recreational 

fisheries programs. A disconcerting finding of this study, however, indicates a wide-spread 

lack of fundamental fisheries resource data (i.e., amount of fishable waters, fish population 

levels and abundance, tribal and non-tribal use and participation) for the estimated 350 

tribal entities located throughout the lower 48 contiguous states. Although BIA estimates 

that tribal reservations encompass 91 million acres of land and 1.6 million surface acres of 

fishable waters, very little of this information can be disaggregated down into 

reservation-specific data For the few tribes that do maintain adequate resource, 

recreational use, and economic data files, the documented impacts of a well planned and 

managed non-tnbal recreational fisheries program have been enormous in comparison to 

L-ibal investments in such programs. 

Current data on fisheries resources, both biological and socio-economic, allow for 

successful and efficient marketing of a recreational fisheries program. The Salish and 

Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Indian Reservation have used such data to promote the 

recreational opportunities offered by their 70,000 surface acres of lakes and over 400 miles 

of streams. Proper inventory of the Tribes' fishery, of which approximately 90 percent are 

naturally reproducing, has been instrumental in their successful management. In 1991, this 

management yielded a total of 12,529 annual fishing licenses sold, representing over 

$225,000 in revenues to be reinvested in the program. 

Adequate fee structures and maintenance of permit sales data are also key management 

considerations for successful tribal fisheries programs. license fees yield much-needed 

program revenues. Active program management allows for growth and development of a 

fisheries program concomitant with increases in recreational fishing participation. The 

Eastern Band of Cherokee Indian Reservation funds its program using only fishing license 

revenues. In fiscal year 1992 the Cherokee fully funded their program with the $360,000 

17 
177 

they received from license sales. The total economic impact incurring as a result of 

recreational fishing on the reservation was estimated to be $35 million. 

Reliable creel study and fisheries inventory data also helps gauge the success of a 

recreational fisheries program. This data allows fisheries managers to develop and 

implement more efficient and effective fish management plans that meet the needs of 

anglers. The White Mountain Apache Indian Reservation bas taken advantage of a 

progressive management program and their resultant trophy Apache trout fishery helped 

attract over $500,000 in license revenues in fiscal1990 alone. 

Combined, sound biological monitoring and management, efficient permitting, 

enforcement and promotion of a tribal fisheries program can yield tremendous economic 

impacts and J?.rovide social and economic st1bility through business diversity for Indian 

reservations willing to accept non-tribal recreational fisheries as an economic development 

tool. One of the greatest needs for increased tribal fisheries development in the future is for 

a cooperative and coordinated effort on the parts of federal natural resource management 

agencies to provide technical and financial assistance for helping tribal programs plan and 

implement recreational fisheries programs. Such coordinated efforts will ensure that all 

tribes will have access to assistance and will be able to develop and manage their programs 

so the optimal social and economic benefits can be achieved. 

18 
178 

APPENQIX A: OUTDOOR PUBLIC RECltEA TION ON TRIBAL LANDS 

OPPORTUNITIES I PROGRAMS 

Public Uses / Management Programs 

Tribe I Reservation Fish Hunt Camp Boat 

ABERDEEN AREA 

S!lulb Dak!lla 

Cheyenne River Yes Yes Yes Yes 

Crow Creek Yes Yes Yes Yes 

Lower Brule Yes Yes Yes Yes 

Pine Ridge Yes Yes Yes 

Rosebud Yes Yes Yes Yes 

Sisseton-Wahpeton Yes Yes Yes 

Yankton Sioux Yes Yes Yes Yes 

~!lrlb Ilak!lla 

Devils Lake Yes Yes Yes Yes 

FonBenbold Yes Yes Yes Yes 

Standing Rock Yes Yes Yes Yes 

Turtle Mountain Yes Yes Yes Yes 

~ 

Omaba Yes Yes Yes 

Santee Sioux Yes Yes Yes 

Winnebago Yes Yes 

ALBUQUERQUE AREA 

NewMexicg 

Isleta Yes Yes 

Jemez Yes Yes 

Jicarilla Yes Yes Yes Yes 

19 
179 

OUTDOOR PUBUC RECREATION ON TRIBAL LANDS 

OPPORTIJNITIES i PROGRAMS (cont'cl.) 

PubUc: Uses I Manapment Pfocr:lms 

Tribe I Reservation Flsla Hut Camp Boat 

ALBUQUERQUE AREA (c:oat'cl.) 

New Maim 

Mesc:alero Yes Yes Yes Yes 

Nambe Yes Yes Yes 

Picuris Yes Yes 

Sandia Yes 

SaD Ddefooso Yes Yes Yes 

SaD Juan Yes 

SalltaClaia Yes· Yes 

Southern Ute Yes Yes Yes 

Zia Yes 

Zuni Yes Yes Yes 

~ 

Ute Mountain Ute Yes Yes 

ANADARKO AREA 

Kanw 

Prairie Potawatomi Yes Yes Yes 

Iau 

Alabama-Coushatta Yes Yes Yes 

BIWNGSAREA 

ldsm.1wla 

Blackfeet Yes Yes Yes Yes 

Crow Yes Yes Yes Yes 

20 
180 

OUTDOOR PUBliC RECREATION ON TRIBAL lANDS 

OPPORTUNITIES I PROGRAMS (cont'd.) 

Public Uses I Management Programs 

Tribe I Reservation Fish Hunt Camp Boat 

BILUNGS AREA (cont'd.) 

M.wUana 

Fort Belknap Yes Yes Yes 

Fort Peck Yes Yes Yes Yes 

Rocky Boy's Yes Yes 

~ 

Wind River Yes Yes Yes 

EASTERN AREA 

.El.w:ilia. 

1.\iliccosukee Yes Yes Yes Yes 

Seminole Yes Yes 

M.a.i.nJ: 

Passamaquoddy Yes 

Penobscot Yes Yes Yes Yes 

Mjssjssjppi 

Choctaw Yes Yes Yes Yes 

New York 

Seneca Yes Yes Yes 

North Carolina 

Cherokee Yes Yes Yes 

21 
181 

OUTDOOR PUBLIC RECREATION ON TRIBAL LAi'I/DS 

OPPORTUNITIES I PROGRAMS (cont'd) 

Public Uses I Management Programs 

Tribe I Reservation Fish Hunt Camp Boat 

MINNEAPOLIS AREA 

~ 

Kewennaw Bay ~ Yes Yes Yes Yes 

Saginaw Yes Yes Yes Yes 

Minnesota 

Bois Forte Yes Yes 

Grand Portage Yes Yes Yes Yes 

Leech Lake Yes Yes Yes Yes 

Mille Lacs Yes Yes Yes Yes 

RedLake Yes Ye5 

White Earth Yes Yes Yes 

Wjsconsjn 

Lac Courte Oreilles Yes Yes 

Lac du Flambeau Yes Yes Yes Yes 

Menominee Yes Yes Yes 

Oneida Yes Yes 

Red Cliff Yes Yes Yes Yes 

Stockbridge~ Munsee Yes Yes 

NAVAJO AREA 

Arizlln.a. 

Navajo Yes Yes Yes Yes 

PHOENIX AREA 

Arizlln.a. 

Cocopah Yes Yes Yes Yes 

22 
182 

OUTDOOR PUBUC RECREATION ON TRIBAL L\NDS 

OPPORTUNITIES I PROGRAMS (cont'd.) 

Public Uses I Management Programs 

Tribe I Reservation Fish Hunt Camp Boat 

PHOENIX AREA (cont'd.) 

.A.rimo..il. 

Colorado River Yes Yes Yes Yes 

Fort Apache Yes Yes Yes Yes 

Fort McDowell Yes Yes Yes 

Fort Yuma Yes Yes Yes Yes 

Hualapai Yes Yes Yes Yes 

Salt River Yes Yes Yes 

San Carlos Yes Yes Yes Yes 

White Mountain Apache Yes Yes Yes Yes 

California 

Cbemehuevi Yes Yes Yes Yes 

Fort Mojave Yes Yes Yes 

Nrullla 

Duck Valley Yes Yes 

Pyramid Lake Yes Yes Yes 

Walker River Yes Yes Yes 

Washoe Yes Yes Yes 

Yomba Yes Yes 

ll.tah 

Uintah & Ouray Yes Yes Yes Yes 

PORTLAND AREA 

Al.aska 

Metlakatla Yes Yes Yes Yes 

23 
183 

OUTDOOR PUBUC RECREATION ON TRIBAL lANDS 

OPPORTUNITIES I PROGRAMS (coot'd.) 

Public Uses I Management Programs 

Tribe I Reservation Fish Hunt Camp Boat 

PORTLAND AREA (cont'd.) 

ld.alul 

Coeur d' Alene Yes Yes Yes Yes 

Fort Hall Yes Yes Yes 

Mnn1a.n.a 

Flathead Yes Yes Yes Yes 

.a.t=n 

Warm Springs Yes Yes Yes 

Wasbjnifop 

Colville Yes Yes Yes Yes 

Makah Yes Yes Yes 

Quileute Yes Yes Yes 

Spokane Yes Yes Yes 

Tulalip Yes Yes 

Umatilla Yes Yes Yes 

Yakima Yes Yes Yes Yes 

SACRAMENTO AREA 

California 

La Jolla Yes Yes 

Yurok Yes Yes 

Source: Bureau of Indiao Affairs. 1991. Outdoor Recreation oo Indiao Lands: Oppor!Unities aod Cootacts. 

BA. Office of Trust aod Economic Development. FISh, Wildlife aod Recreation Programs, 

Washington, D.C. 20240. 22 p. 

24 




ISBN 0-16-045918-4 

90000