148 



03-03-1993 12:32 503J885410 KARNOPP PETEK-.eN et al. 



P. 04 



legislative history that "Congress actually considered the conflict 

 between Its intended action on the one hand and Indian treaty 

 rights on the other, and chose to resolve that conflict by 

 abrogating the treaty." lA. at 740. Presently, no such language 

 exists in either the statute or the legislative history of the 

 Endangered Species Act. By amending Section 6 of the Act to 

 include tribes as governments eligible for funding under the Act, 

 a court may be misled that this represents a statement of 

 Congressional Intent that the Act should be applied to tribes even 

 if the effect is to abrogate or restrict treaty rights. This 

 should not be allowed to happen. 



Accordingly, we urge the Committee to draft Indian fish and 

 wildlife legislation that provides adequate financial assistance 

 to all tribes for fish and wildlife management, and provides those 

 tribes that feel the need to undertake certain activities because 

 of the Endangered Species Act with adequate resources for that 

 purpose. However, legislation should not mention the Endangered 

 Species Act nor attempt to amend the Endangered Species Act to 

 Include tribes within its coverage. such an amendment must be 

 avoided because it could very well work to abrogate the treaty- 

 reserved rights of Warm Springs and many other tribes. 



iu,^lml*l*«i« 



-2- 



