47 



Despite the importance of these activities, there is no overall fed- 

 eral statutory mandate for the protection of natural resources that 

 tribes use. 



This means that, for the most part, the protection and manage- 

 ment of tribal fish and wildlife resources depends upon the initia- 

 tive of tribes and tribal organizations, and the uncertainty of the 

 federal appropriations process. 



Tribal efforts to regulate their fish, wildlife and gathering rights 

 should be supported and strengthened through federal legislation. 



From the Commission's experience, we would suggest that the 

 legislation should address the following topics, among others: 



First, tribes have the sovereign authority to regulate tribal mem- 

 bers in the exercise of their treaty rights, as well as the authority 

 to manage the natural resources subject to tribal member harvest. 

 Federal law should clearly acknowledge the primacy of tribal self- 

 regulation of treaty protected natural resources both on and off the 

 reservation. 



Second, the federal responsibility must go beyond the recognition 

 of the tribal right to self-regulate with respect to natural resources. 



The United States must, in addition, provide tribes with the op- 

 portunity to participate fiilly with other governments on matters 

 which have a substantial impact on tribal natural resources. 



The United States must assure the tribes of full representation 

 and voting status on a government to government basis on any 

 board or agency which is involved in decisions which affect tribal 

 rights to natural resources. 



Third, when tribes entered treaties reserving their hunting, fish- 

 ing, and gathering rights, those treaties were with the United 

 States, and not with a single agency. 



The federal trust responsibility arising out of those treaties ap- 

 plies to all federal dealings, and I underscore all. The responsibility 

 is not limited just to the Bureau of Indian Affairs. 



Yet, in dealing with issues affecting tribal treaty rights, the fed- 

 eral agencies differ greatly from one another. 



Our experience has been that in addressing tribal natural re- 

 source issues, the BIA has typically recognized that its actions 

 must be consistent with the trust responsibility. The BIA has gen- 

 erally supported the Commission's self-regulatory efforts. 



But certain other agencies do not always deal with the Commis- 

 sion in the manner of a trustee. The result has been an uneven and 

 inconsistent relationship between the tribes and the various federal 

 agencies whose actions affect natural resources. 



We would suggest that federal legislation should clarify that the 

 federal trust responsibility apphes across the board to all federal 

 agencies in their dealings with tribal natural resource issues. 



The legislation should also mandate that the govemment-to-gov- 

 emment relationship be institutionalized by these agencies through 

 the establishment of Indian desks and other means. Too often, In- 

 dian desks are desks with just three legs. And we need to go be- 

 yond that. 



Fourth, while the Commission is proud of its natural resource 

 management program and of its many accomplishments, there re- 

 main significant unmet needs. Additional member tribes of the 

 Commission, particularly those in Michigan and Minnesota, are 



