147 



03-03-1993 12.31 



5fc- 385410 



KARNOPP PETE, -N et al. 



P. 03 



■OVPLINSMTAIty TIBTZNONY Of THB 



comaDnuiTiD trzbbb of ths 



MXSM SVBZMaB RBBBUVXTZOII OF ORBOOV 

 COMCBRirZMa XATZOMXL ZHDZAM rZBB AND WZLDLZTB LBaZBLATION 



OMZTBD BTXTB8 HOUBB OF BBPItBBBHTATZVBB 



COXNZTTBB OX MXTTOAL KBBOORCBB 

 8UBC01CMZTTBB OM MATZYB ANESZCMI XffXZIUI 



This Btat«nent BupplwmentB the testimony of the confederated Tribes 

 of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon concerning Indian fish 

 and wildlife management and enhancement legislation delivered at 

 the Committee's February 18, 1993 oversight hearing. 



Our supplementary testimony is in response to statements made by 

 several witnesses at the February 18 oversight hearing concerning 

 the need to amend Section 6 of the Endangered Species Act to permit 

 tribal governments to receive direct federal funding for fish and 

 wildlife management activities. According to these tribal 

 witnesses, only states can now receive federal funds to conduct 

 inventories and develop management plans for endangered species 

 under Section 6 of the Endangered Species Act. The Warm Springs 

 Confederated Tribes believes that amendment of any provisions of 

 the Endangered Species Act to include Indian tribes is unnecessary 

 and could potentially undermine tribal treaty rights. 



Amendment of the Endangered Species Act is not necessary to address 

 what is essentially a funding problem. This issue can be dealt 

 with by other means. If tribes have inadequate funding to conduct 

 resource management work they feel is necessary under the 

 Endangered Species Act, the Bureau of Indian Affairs should provide 

 these tribes with additional discretionary funding that could be 

 used for a variety of purposes, including work on Endangered 

 Species Act issues. The money would not necessarily be earmarked 

 for Endangered Species Act purposes, but could be used for any 

 appropriate fish and wildlife management activities. The 

 Endangered Species Act does not need to be amended to get this 

 funding to tribal governments. 



Of far greater concern to us is the possibility that any amendment 

 to the Endangered Species Act that mentions tribal governments may 

 have the effect of applying the Act to tribes in a way that 

 abrogates or restricts their treaty rights. Presently, the 

 Endangered Species Act and its legislative history are silent with 

 respect to the Act's application to tribes and its impact on Indian 

 treaty rights. n«Ho^ T^r.^^^>,r^ n^iif.es v. Dlen. 476 U.S. 734, (1986), 

 Congress cannot abrogate or restrict Indian treaty rights in a 

 statute of general application such as the Endangered Species Act 

 without clearly indicating in the language of the statute or in its 



