NATIVE LAW
Emma Giusto
In Scudero v. State, 496 P.3d 381 (Alaska 2021), the supreme court held that an Alaska Native’s fishing rights did not exempt him from the State’s fishing regulations. (Id. at 383). Scudero, a member of the Metlakatla Indian Community, was charged with not having a fishing permit, fishing in closed waters, and unlawful possession of fish. (Id. at 384). At trial, Scudero argued that under the reserved rights doctrine he was not violating the law, based on federal regulations and President Woodrow Wilson’s proclamation that the area around the island was part of the Reserve. (Id. at 383, 385). The jury found Scudero guilty on all three counts and he appealed to the court of appeals, which asked the supreme court to take jurisdiction as the case involved an important constitutional question. (Id. at 385). In affirming the trial court on Scudero’s convictions, the supreme court relied on the conservation necessity principle, which recognizes that while federal statutes generally control, when off-reservation hunting and fishing rights are reserved by federal treaties they are still subject to state regulation as long as the regulation is reasonable and necessary and its application to native populations is necessary for conservation. (Id. at 386–88). The court reasoned that Scudero’s convictions were covered by the conservation necessity principle as the purpose of the Limited Entry Act under which he was convicted has been recognized as conservation of resources and maintaining a robust fishing industry. (Id. at 388–89). Affirming the trial court, the supreme court held that aboriginal or reserved fishing rights did not exempt an Alaska Native from the State’s commercial fishing regulations. (Id. at 388).
