Opinion ID: 585636
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Application of the Lacey Act to the On-Reservation Conduct of Tribal Members

Text: 4 We review the district court's construction of the Act, and all other issues of law, de novo. United States v. Thomas, 887 F.2d 1341, 1343 (9th Cir.1989). The Lacey Act provided at the time of the offense that it was unlawful for any person to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase any fish or wildlife or plant taken or possessed in violation of any law, treaty, or regulation of the United States or in violation of any Indian tribal law. 16 U.S.C. § 3372(a)(1). Colville Tribal Code § 7.3.11 provides that [n]o person shall kill, shoot at or pursue any animal from a moving motor vehicle, or shoot at or kill any game animal with the aid of any light or lights attached to such vehicle or by means of an artificial light. Thus, acquiring or transporting a game animal, such as a whitetail deer, Wash.Rev.Code Ann. § 77.08.030 (West Supp.1992), killed on the Colville Reservation with the aid of an artificial light constitutes a violation of the Lacey Act. 5 Hobbs contends that he may not be prosecuted under the Lacey Act because he is an enrolled member of the Colville Confederated Tribes and therefore falls within the purview of the rule that in the absence of an explicit Congressional directive, Indian tribes have exclusive criminal jurisdiction over offenses committed by one Indian against another Indian. United States v. Jackson, 600 F.2d 1283, 1285 (9th Cir.1979). The Jackson case, upon which Hobbs relies, was not a Lacey Act case, and was explained in United States v. Sohappy, 770 F.2d 816 (9th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 477 U.S. 906 (1986). In Sohappy, we determined that the prohibitions of the Lacey Act apply to tribal members acting within the confines of Indian country as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1151 (1988). Sohappy controls here. The scope of federal enclave laws, at issue in Jackson, is limited by 18 U.S.C. § 1152 (1988), which provides that such laws are not applicable to offenses committed by one Indian against the person or property of another Indian. The intra-Indian offense exception in section 1152 does not preclude the application within a reservation of general federal law, regardless of whether either the victim or the defendant is an Indian. United States v. Young, 936 F.2d 1050, 1055 (9th Cir.1991) (affirming a conviction on charges of assaulting a federal officer, possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, and use of a firearm during a crime of violence). Since the Lacey Act is a law of general applicability rather than an enclave law, its reach is not limited by section 1152. Since the Act is designed to support the web of federal, state and Indian tribal law protecting wildlife, and since wildlife conservation reflects a concern for the general public welfare, Sohappy, 770 F.2d at 819, the prosecution does not trench on the Colville Tribe's right to self-governance with respect to a purely intramural matter.