209 



Testimony of Red Lake Chairman Gerald F. Brun, February 18, 1993 



Before the House Native American Affairs Subcommittee 



Regarding Tribal Fish and Wildlife Conservation Legislation 



of $200 in 1960 is really only $38.74 in today's dollars. Or, put another way, if the $200 fine 

 set in 1960 had grown with inflation, it would be a $953 fine today. 



Inflation is not the only factor weakening conservation enforcement on Reservations. 

 Criminals are getting more sophisticated. To maintain their effectiveness, state and federal 

 enforcement measures are becoming increasingly sophisticated. One of the most effective 

 of the new enforcement tools is the authority to seize and forfeit a poacher's equipment and 

 vehicle. Like in the area of drug enforcement, taking the tools of the criminal enterprise has 

 emerged as an important and effective measure in conservation enforcement by federal and 

 state governments. These same forfeiture powers should be applied to Indian Reservation 

 conservation enforcement efforts to assist under-funded tribal government conservation 

 programs. 



For these reasons, Red Lake proposes that 18 U.S.C. § 1165 be amended to increase 

 maximum penalties to a $3,000 fine, or one year imprisonment, or both, and to additionally 

 vest tribal conservation enforcement programs with the authority to seize and forfeit to their 

 programs' use all personal property used by the violator to carry out the violation. This 

 would include forfeiture powers over hunting and fishing as well as all transportation 

 equipment used in the criminal enterprise. 



We believe it may be most politically feasible to include a provision that would 

 automatically apply the higher of either the new federal penalties we propose or the 

 neighboring state's penalties for prohibited hunting and fishing on state-administered game 

 preserves. Since state penalties vary from state to state. Congress could in this way ensure 

 that penalties applied on Reservations are no less stringent than surrounding state penalties. 



SET ASIDE FUNDS TO TRIBES FROM THE FEDERAL FISH 

 AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS 



Tribal governments are finding it increasingly difficult to manage their natural 

 resource programs. Increasing numbers of people are residing upon and using the 

 Reservation as populations swell and tribal members return home to live and work. This 

 has resulted in increased reliance on natural resources for sustenance as well as increased 

 environmental degradation. 



Nevertheless, in recent years BIA funding for natural resources has been declining 

 in favor of modest increases targeted for human services programs. And what funding does 



Page 5 



