I’m no lawyer, but this reads to me like tribal F&W folks can’t cite non-members for fishing on Lake Roosevelt. True?: http://ow.ly/awnVg
-
Recent Posts
Archives
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
Categories
-
Join 17 other subscribers
Meta
Pages
gcdstar 
Yes the Cassidy decision means that you need not have a Colville Fishing license for fishing on the waters because the Tribes gave up all “rights, title and interest” when the dam was put in and the land was purchase. By extension of this reasoning a person doesn’t have to have a Colville fishing license when fishing below the 1310 line on federal land adjacent to the lake. However, the Colvilles will attempt to argue that you consented to jurisdiction under provisions of the code if you arrived on the federal land when driving through any tribal roads. I haven’t seen this litigated in court. I learned a little bit about this when I represent the State in the case of State v. Michael J Boyd which discussed the land at the Rogers Bar campground in 2001.
Thanks for shedding a little more light on a subject coming up.