"Treaty rights belong to tribes, they don't belong to individuals," he added.

Fred Voros, an assistant attorney general for Utah who is assisting in the prosecution in Reber, said the state is "very pleased that the Utah Supreme Court has agreed to hear the Reber case. This is an important case that will affect wildlife regulation over 2 million acres in Utah."

Humiston has said he will argue for Reber's treaty rights. Reber's family was terminated from the rolls of the Ute Indian Tribe during the 1954 Ute Partition Act. Reber's name never showed up on the official termination rolls, because he was 2 years old at the time.

Uintah Deputy County Attorney Ed Peterson said he is "delighted" that the state Supreme Court will hear the case and is confident the issue over hunting and fishing jurisdiction will be "fixed."

"The appellate decision has created quite a bit of confusion, and we believe the appellate decision was based upon a mistaken belief that the terms 'Indian Country' and 'tribal trust lands' describe the same thing," Peterson said. "We hope to clarify this for the Supreme Court."

Peterson said that a decision in time for the upcoming big-game hunting season would be impossible, but one will "hopefully" be rendered prior to the 2007 hunting season.

To deal with the Reber decision, DWR officials have come up with what is being called a "short-term fix." All wildlife violations previously handled through state courts will now be reviewed for prosecution as federal criminal offenses through the U.S. Attorney's Office and prosecuted in federal court.

"We want to make sure it is absolutely clear that anyone who breaks hunting and fishing laws within the Ute Indian Reservation will face criminal consequences," said Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff.

---

E-mail: lezleewhiting@hotmail.com