right to fish when necessary to prevent the destruction of a run of a particular species in a particular stream.”). Although the Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit have focused on the subject of the “in common” treaty-fishing right at issue, i.e., the fish, the Court finds that this “non-destruction” principle extends to the individual exercising the “in common” right, i.e., the hunter or fisher. This conclusion is supported by the Tribe’s understanding when it entered the 1891 Agreement that neither tribal members nor state citizens could destroy each other’s right to exercise the “in common” hunting right. See E. Goodman, Protecting Habitat for Off-Reservation Tribal Hunting and Fishing Rights: Tribal Co-management as a Reserved Right, 30 Envtl. L. 279, 309 & 320-24 (Spring 2000) (<HOLDING>). Further, at that time, the Tribe would have
holding that indian tribes could only exercise criminal jurisdiction over tribal members and not other indians holding that federal and tribal prohibitions on hunting and fishing on the south half of the lake apply because under rochester the united states owns it in trust for the tribes recognizing the inherent power of indian tribes  to exercise criminal jurisdiction over all indians holding that an indian tribes exercise of criminal jurisdiction over nonindians is inconsistent with the domesticdependent status of the tribes and that tribes may not assume such jurisdiction without congressional authorization recognizing that tribes and states understood that they shared the right to manage the exercise of in common hunting and fishing rights