contravenes U.S. Supreme Court treaty-interpretation principles. The State relies on United States v. Gallaher, 275 F.3d 784 (9th Cir.2001); United States v. Fox, 573 F.3d 1050 (10th Cir.2009); and Washington v. Olney, 117 Wash.App. 524, 72 P.3d 235 (2003). The Court finds Gallaher and Fox inapplicable because both cases involved federal prosecutions against tribal members relating to being a felon in possession of a firearm or ammunition. The standard applied to assess whether a federal statute abrogates a treaty right is fundamentally different than the standard applied to assess whether a state may regulate an Indian’s exercise of an “in common” treaty usufructuary right. See Menominee Tribe of Indians v. United States, 391 U.S. 404, 411 n. 12, 88 S.Ct. 1705, 20 L.Ed.2d 697 (1968) (<HOLDING>); Solis v. Matheson, 563 F.3d 425, 437 (9th
holding that requiring a permit and the restoration of the land after the mining operations had concluded did not preempt federal law however the court did recognize that where a state regulation rendered it impossible to exercise a right granted through federal legislation that state regulation would be in conflict with the federal right recognizing that a treaty is a supreme law of the land and therefore generally not subject to state regulation absent congressional cessation holding in context of local environmental review process that ajesthetics is generally a valid subject of  regulation and concern recognizing that when an agency promulgates a regulation that is intended to preempt state law the regulation should not be disturbed unless there is evidence that it is contrary to congressional intent recognizing that sale of insurance affects the public interest and is subject to state regulation