One avenue under consideration would be to prosecute alleged offenders under the Assimilative Crimes Act. The act makes it a federal criminal offense to commit an act on Indian lands that would be a crime if committed on lands subject to state jurisdiction.

A second option involves use of the Lacey Act, which makes it a federal offense to take fish or wildlife illegally on Indian lands in violation of federal, state or tribal law, Christophersen said.

Under either option, DWR officials could be cross-deputized to act in place of federal law enforcement officers and arrest suspected poachers.

Tribal officials said earlier they do not have enough employees or the financial resources to handle criminal prosecution of hunting and fishing violations, except for cases involving tribal members.

A Memorandum of Understanding signed between the state and the Ute Indian Tribe in 1999 gave DWR conservation officers authority for patrolling, issuing citations and making arrests of non-tribal members when hunting or fishing-related violations occurred within the exterior boundary area.

Non-Indian offenders were prosecuted in state court, while tribal members were seen in Ute Tribal Court or federal court.

Christophersen said offenders familiar with the state court system will be in for a rude awakening now that it appears they will go before a federal judge.

"In federal court there is no plea bargaining. Federal court is completely different," said Christophersen. "If it is somebody who has got a record and is used to the way the state operates ... they won't like" the federal rules.

Each year, the DWR's northeast region hands out an average of 750 hunting and fishing citations to non-tribal members within exterior boundaries of the reservation. The federal system handles considerably fewer hunting- and fishing-related violations in a year.

Sending all the cases involving non-tribal members to federal court could overwhelm the system, Christophersen said. That's why other agencies have offered to help carry some of that load.

"We did get a commitment from the county attorneys and the state Attorney General's Office that if it does get to that point they will come in and help so there is not a backlog," Christophersen said.

The Utah Attorney General's Office expects to find out this month or next whether its petition to the Utah Supreme Court to hear the case will be granted. If it is, it will be late fall before the case makes it before the high court, even if it is put on the "fast track" because of the urgency of the situation.

---

E-mail: ubsnews@ubtanet.com