Demographics by depth: spatially explicit life-history dynamics of a protogynous reef fish

Distribution and demographics of the hogfish (Lachnolaimus maximus) were investigated by using a combined approach of in situ observations and life history analyses. Presence, density, size, age, and size and age at sex change all varied with depth in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. Hogfish (64–774 mm fork length and 0–19 years old) were observed year-round and were most common over complex, natural hard bottom habitat. As depth increased, the presence and density of hogfish decreased, but mean size and age increased. Size at age was smaller nearshore (<30 m). Length and age at sex change of nearshore hogfish were half those of offshore hogfish and were coincident with the minimum legal size limit. Fishing pressure is presumably greater nearshore and presents a confounding source of increased mortality; however, a strong red tide occurred the year before this study began and likely also affected nearshore demographics. Nevertheless, these data indicate ontogenetic migration and escapement of fast-growing fish to offshore habitat, both of which should reduce the likelihood of fishing-induced evolution. Data regarding the hogfish fishery are limited and regionally dependent, which has confounded previous stock assessments; however, the spatially explicit vital rates reported herein can be applied to future monitoring efforts

Implied Limitation on the Jurisdiction of Indian Tribes

In 1978 the Supreme Court in Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe held that the retained sovereignty of Indian tribes over tribal reservations does not include the power to punish non-Indians who commit offenses against tribal law.\u27 Based on a number of facts and premises, the Court concluded that it had been assumed from the beginning that the tribes lack this authority except where expressly recognized or conferred by treaty provision or act of Congress. The Court also relied on the fact that during the formative years few Indian tribes had the governmental structure necessary to comply with Anglo-American requirements of due process of law. This article reviews the Oliphant decision and discusses the authority of Indian tribes to make and enforce civil laws applicable to non-Indians within tribal Indian country. The Court\u27s analysis in Oliphant has already become the focus for lower court decisions dealing with the scope of tribal jurisdiction. In the following discussion, the tribal claim to authority in noncriminal matters and the opposing view that the Oliphant rationale should be extended to all forms of tribal authority are evaluated

To Sue and Be Sued: Capacity and Immunity of American Indian Nations

Can American Indian nations sue and be sued in federal and state courts? Specific issues are whether tribes have corporate capacity to sue, whether a Native group has recognized status as a tribe, and whether and to what extent tribes and their officers have governmental immunity from suit. Tribal capacity to sue is now well established, and federal law has well-defined procedures and rules for tribal recognition. But tribal sovereign immunity is actively disputed. This Article reviews retained tribal sovereignty in general and summarizes past contests over tribal capacity to sue and their resolution into today’s settled rule. Next is a concise statement of the law on federal recognition of tribal entities. Most of the Article explains and analyzes ongoing issues about tribal immunity from suit. Tribal immunity has been continuously recognized from the first reported decision, but tribes’ commercial activities, modern attacks on immunity generally, and states-rights proclivities of some justices jeopardize its existence. Much active litigation involves suits against tribal officers and possible application of the Ex parte Young doctrine. For many reasons, tribes are adopting carefully defined consents to suit, particularly in relation to tribal casinos. This Article’s essential purpose is to give tribes and their lawyers a full account of the law on tribal immunity and current disputes about it