Opinion ID: 538456
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Establishment of Conservation Necessity

Text: 16 Before a state can apply its conservation laws to Indians who have acquired treaty rights to hunt and fish the state must establish that its laws are necessary for conservation purposes. Antoine v. Washington, 420 U.S. 194, 207, 95 S.Ct. 944, 951, 43 L.Ed.2d 129 (1975); United States v. Sohappy, 770 F.2d 816 (9th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 477 U.S. 906, 106 S.Ct. 3278, 91 L.Ed.2d 568 (1986). Thus, before convicting Williams, the district court held a hearing to determine the conservation necessity of the Montana and Idaho laws, applied to Williams through the Lacey Act. As a result of that hearing, the court held that the wildlife laws are reasonably necessary to promote conservation and therefore that Williams could be convicted of violating those laws. 17 The United States claims that the district court need not have assessed conservation necessity and that Williams could have been convicted without a hearing on the issue. The United States argues that the treaty right to hunt is a tribal right and not an individual right. Since the tribe has chosen to outlaw hunting, the argument continues, an individual member cannot assert that right. Without the assertion of this right, the United States concludes, the government need not prove the conservation necessity of hunting laws. 18 We choose not to take this step advocated by the United States. The purpose of requiring the government to prove conservation necessity before imposing its wildlife laws on tribe members is to safeguard the hunting and fishing rights held by the tribes while pursuing the important goal of conservation. The aim is to accommodate the rights of Indians under the Treaty and the rights of other people. Department of Game v. Puyallup Tribe, 414 U.S. 44, 49, 94 S.Ct. 330, 333, 38 L.Ed.2d 254 (1973). The argument of the United States would essentially lead to the loss of tribal treaty rights in hunting if the tribe chooses to regulate the activity in the same manner as a state. We interpret the tribal wildlife regulations as an exercise of treaty rights and not as a disclaimer of those rights. 19 However, we find that it is significant that the tribe has chosen to outlaw the same form of hunting that the states, through the Lacey Act, have also prohibited. The requirement of establishing the validity of wildlife laws through a showing of conservation necessity applies only to state laws incorporated through the Lacey Act. Sohappy, 770 F.2d at 824. There is no requirement of conservation necessity for establishing the validity of tribal wildlife laws incorporated through the Lacey Act. 2 Tribal wildlife laws are per se valid against tribe members. The requirement of a full hearing to establish the validity of the state wildlife laws is superfluous if, as in this case, the tribe enacted similar laws which are clearly valid. 3 20 We therefore find that if an Indian tribe has enacted wildlife laws similar to the state or federal laws that are being enforced against tribe members, the tribal laws create a presumption of validity. The courts must make a finding of the validity of the use of state or federal wildlife laws against tribe members. However, there is no need for a hearing on the issue of conservation necessity if the tribe itself has enacted similar, valid laws. Trial courts need only establish the existence of such similar laws in order to establish the validity of the state or federal laws. 21 In Sohappy, we held that the government had the burden of establishing the conservation necessity of state and federal wildlife laws before enforcing the laws against members of tribes with hunting and fishing treaty rights. 770 F.2d at 824. The Sohappy court took note of the fact that tribal law prohibited the same activity at issue in the Lacey Act prosecution, but did not conclude that the tribal prohibition was sufficient to establish validity. Id. at 825. We take that step now, and hold that the government can meet its burden by proving the existence of tribal wildlife laws similar to the state and federal laws which the government is attempting to enforce against tribe members. 22 Since it is clear that the Nez Perce Tribe has enacted laws similar to those which Williams was convicted of under the Lacey Act, we need not reach the issue of whether or not the evidence presented fully establishes the conservation necessity of the Idaho and Montana prohibitions on commercial moose hunting. 4 We find that the tribal laws establish the validity of the Lacey Act prosecution. 5