Indian LawPaper details:
Due date 7/25/15 Read Nutshell Chapter 15 p. 517-550 Discussion #11: 1) Fish and game are nomadic and migratory. They do not respect Tribal or state borders. Tribal sovereignty permits Tribes to regulate, administrate and otherwise oversee and control fish and game, hunters and fishermen on reservations. Most states have thorough and well tested game management, hunter/fisherman rules, regulations and administration. What are the pros and cons relating to state fish and game departments having concurrent or total jurisdiction on Indian reservations? 2) Should it matter if the Tribe uses the fish and game for subsistence living or just for recreation/sport?

Indian Law

Paper details:

In light of the Lyng decision, Havasupai decision and the Employment Division decision, do tribes need to seek legislation to protect sacred sites/lands, or religious practices? 2) Do you think if there were other religions involved in disputes like this, that there would be different results? Why, or why not?
1) In light of the Lyng decision, Havasupai decision and the Employment
Division decision, do tribes need to seek legislation to protect sacred sites/lands, or
religious practices?
2) Do you think if there were other religions involved in disputes like this, that there
would be different results? Why, or why not?

Indian Law

Paper details:

In light of the Lyng decision, Havasupai decision and the Employment Division decision, do tribes need to seek legislation to protect sacred sites/lands, or religious practices? 2) Do you think if there were other religions involved in disputes like this, that there would be different results? Why, or why not?
1) In light of the Lyng decision, Havasupai decision and the Employment
Division decision, do tribes need to seek legislation to protect sacred sites/lands, or
religious practices?
2) Do you think if there were other religions involved in disputes like this, that there
would be different results? Why, or why not?