Investor Presentaiton

H UNITED STATES V. OREGON (1969 - US DISTRICT COURT - DISTRICT OF OREGON) I NECESSARY FOR THE CONSERVATION OF THE FISH From indispensable (Tulee, Makah, Maison, Holcomb), to reasonable and necessary (Puyallup), to least restrictive. "To prove necessity, the state must show there is a need to limit the taking of fish and that the particular regulation sought to be imposed upon the exercise of the treaty right is necessary to the accomplishment of the needed limitation. This applies to regulations restricting the type of gear which Indians may use as much as it does to restrictions on the time at which Indians may fish." 302 F. Supp. 899, 908-09.

View entire presentation