## Facts

- Donald Ray Buchanan, a member of the Nooksack Indian Tribe, killed elk in the Oak Creek Wildlife Area, land owned and managed by the State of Washington.
- The State charged Buchanan with illegally hunting elk during a closed season and while his state hunting license was revoked.
- Buchanan moved to dismiss, asserting a treaty right under the 1855 Treaty of Point Elliott to hunt on “open and unclaimed lands.”
- The trial court dismissed the charges, and the court of appeals affirmed.
- The State sought review, arguing (1) Oak Creek was outside the tribe’s treaty-protected hunting area, (2) state-owned Oak Creek was not “open and unclaimed,” and (3) any off-reservation treaty hunting right was extinguished by statehood under the equal-footing doctrine.

## Issues

1. Whether the treaty right to hunt on “open and unclaimed lands” extends to hunting in the Oak Creek Wildlife Area based on the tribe’s aboriginal hunting grounds.
2. Whether state-owned land managed as a wildlife area can qualify as “open and unclaimed land” under the treaty.
3. Whether Washington’s admission to the Union abrogated off-reservation treaty hunting rights under the equal-footing doctrine.

## Decision

- The Washington Supreme Court reversed the dismissal and remanded for trial.
- The court held Buchanan may assert a treaty-right defense and present evidence that Oak Creek lies within the Nooksack Tribe’s aboriginal hunting grounds.
- The court held state ownership does not, by itself, make land “claimed” so as to defeat treaty hunting; publicly owned lands may qualify as “open and unclaimed” if not clearly occupied or devoted to uses incompatible with hunting.
- The court rejected the State’s argument that treaty hunting rights were impliedly extinguished at statehood under the equal-footing doctrine.
- The court indicated state regulation burdening treaty hunting requires a conservation justification; on the record presented, the State had not made the required showing.

## Legal Principles

- Indian treaties are interpreted as the tribes would have understood them; ambiguities are resolved in favor of the tribes, and treaty rights are reserved rights rather than federal grants.
- A tribe’s off-reservation treaty hunting right may extend to locations within the tribe’s aboriginal hunting grounds, subject to proof of historical use.
- “Open and unclaimed lands” can include publicly owned lands when the land is not clearly occupied or used in a manner inconsistent with hunting.
- Treaty rights are not terminated by implication upon statehood; abrogation requires clear congressional action.
- A state may regulate treaty hunting for conservation only if the restriction is necessary for conservation and applied in a nondiscriminatory manner.

## Conclusion

The court vacated the pretrial dismissal and remanded, allowing Buchanan to litigate a treaty-hunting defense based on aboriginal hunting grounds and the “open and unclaimed lands” language, while requiring the State to meet the conservation-necessity standard if it seeks to enforce hunting restrictions against treaty-protected hunting.


State v. Buchanan, 978 P.2d 1070 (Wash. 1999)