Native American Fishing Rights NY: Tribal Laws & 2025 Regulations

Native American fishing rights in New York State represent a complex intersection of historical treaties, federal protections, state regulations, and tribal sovereignty. These rights continue to evolve through court decisions, legislative actions, and cooperative agreements between tribes and government agencies. In 2025, understanding these rights is essential for both tribal members exercising their traditional practices and state officials responsible for conservation management.

Historical Foundations of Tribal Fishing Rights

The fishing rights of Native American tribes in New York State are rooted in centuries-old treaties and agreements that guaranteed tribes access to their traditional fishing grounds even after ceding vast territories to European settlers and later the United States government.

Treaty-Based Rights

The Canandaigua Treaty of 1794 (also known as the Pickering Treaty) stands as one of the most important agreements establishing the foundation for tribal rights in New York. Signed between the United States and the Six Nations of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, this treaty established peace and friendship while acknowledging the lands reserved to the Oneida, Onondaga, and Cayuga Nations. While not explicitly detailing fishing rights, this treaty established the federal recognition of tribal territories and sovereignty that would later support fishing rights claims.

According to historical records maintained by the National Archives, the treaty contains language promising that the United States would “never claim [the lands], nor disturb them or either of the Six Nations… in the free use and enjoyment thereof.” This broad language has been interpreted to include traditional practices such as fishing.

The Treaty with the Seneca of 1802 includes more specific provisions for fishing rights. Signed in Albany on August 20, 1802, this agreement explicitly preserved the Seneca Nation’s “right and privilege of encamping their fishing parties on the beach of said river for the purpose of fishing, which is the common right of both parties, and to be enjoyed without hindrance or interruption from either.” This language demonstrates how fishing rights were carefully preserved even during land cessions.

Legal Doctrine of Reserved Rights

Beyond explicit treaty language, Native American fishing rights are protected through the doctrine of reserved rights. This legal principle, established through Supreme Court decisions, holds that tribes retain all rights not explicitly surrendered in treaties. As explained by the Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute, when tribes signed treaties ceding land, they implicitly reserved the right to continue traditional activities like hunting and fishing unless these rights were explicitly given up.

The 1905 Supreme Court case United States v. Winans reinforced this principle by establishing that tribes’ pre-existing rights to fish at “usual and accustomed places” survived the treaties, even when these places were on subsequently ceded land. While this case involved Pacific Northwest tribes, its precedent has influenced interpretations of fishing rights across the country, including in New York State.

Legal Framework Protecting Native Fishing Rights

Native American fishing rights in New York State exist within a multi-layered legal framework that includes federal laws, state statutes, tribal regulations, and court decisions.

Federal Protections

At the federal level, Section 232 of Title 25 in the U.S. Code specifically addresses jurisdiction in New York State. This law grants New York jurisdiction over offenses committed by or against Indians on reservations, but with a crucial provision that protects fishing rights:

“Nothing contained in this section shall be construed to deprive any Indian tribe, band, or community, or members thereof, [of] hunting and fishing rights as guaranteed them by agreement, treaty, or custom, nor require them to obtain State fish and game licenses for the exercise of such rights.”

This federal protection explicitly shields treaty fishing rights from state interference and exempts tribal members from state licensing requirements when exercising these rights.

Additionally, the Internal Revenue Code Section 7873 recognizes the unique status of fishing rights-related income. Under this provision, income earned by tribal members from fishing rights-related activities is exempt from federal and state taxes when these rights are secured by treaty, Executive Order, or Act of Congress. This exemption extends to wages paid for activities directly related to treaty fishing.

New York State Law

New York State law further reinforces these protections through explicit exemptions in its Environmental Conservation Law. Section 11-0707 states:

“Indians inhabiting reservations located wholly or partly within the state and such other Indians as are permitted by the tribal government having jurisdiction over such reservation may hunt, fish, trap upon such reservation subject only to rules, regulations and fish and wildlife laws established by the governing body of such reservation.”

This provision acknowledges tribal sovereignty in regulating on-reservation fishing activities and creates a sphere of tribal jurisdiction largely independent from state control.

For fish harvested on reservations but transported off-reservation, New York requires specific identification measures. The law states:

“Before fish and wildlife taken on reservations by Indians shall be transported or possessed off the reservation it shall be tagged for identification purposes in a manner to be required by the governing body of such reservation.”

This requirement acknowledges tribal authority to establish identification systems while creating accountability for off-reservation possession.

Recent Legislative Efforts

In 2023-2024, New York legislators introduced bills to further clarify protections for Native American fishing rights. Senate Bill S5266 and Assembly Bill A6248 aimed to allow “hunting, fishing, or sale of otherwise prohibited species by citizens of an Indian nation tribe who are exercising a hunting or fishing right.” While these bills did not pass in previous sessions, similar legislation is expected to be reintroduced in 2025.

The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) has also updated its Indigenous Nations and Tribal Communities Policy in 2024, which now includes stronger provisions for consulting with tribal nations regarding fishing regulations that might affect their treaty rights.

New York Tribes with Recognized Fishing Rights

Several indigenous nations in New York State possess recognized fishing rights, though their specific legal status and the extent of these rights vary considerably.

Haudenosaunee Confederacy Nations

The Haudenosaunee Confederacy (also known as the Iroquois Confederacy or Six Nations) includes several tribes with significant fishing rights in New York:

Seneca Nation has explicitly documented fishing rights through the 1802 treaty signed in Albany. This agreement preserved their right to establish fishing camps along the Niagara River even after ceding a mile-wide strip of land. According to the Seneca Nation’s official website, fishing continues to play an important role in their cultural practices and subsistence activities.

Onondaga Nation, part of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, maintains fishing rights protected under the Canandaigua Treaty of 1794. The Onondaga Nation website emphasizes that their people have fished in the waters of central New York for thousands of years, and they continue to fight for clean water and healthy fish populations as part of their environmental stewardship responsibilities.

Cayuga Nation holds fishing rights in their traditional territories around Cayuga Lake and other waters in central New York. The nation has worked with the New York State DEC to maintain access to their traditional fishing grounds while supporting conservation efforts.

Tuscarora Nation and Oneida Indian Nation also maintain fishing rights through various treaties and historical agreements, though the search results don’t provide specific details for each of these tribes.

Long Island Nations

Unkechaug Indian Nation, based in Mastic Beach on Long Island, has actively defended its fishing rights in federal court. In 2018, the tribe filed a lawsuit against the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation challenging state authority to regulate or restrict the tribe’s historical fishing rights. This ongoing legal battle highlights the continuing importance of fishing rights to the Unkechaug people.

Shinnecock Indian Nation members have similarly defended their aboriginal right to fish in Shinnecock Bay without complying with state fishing regulations. In the Silva case, tribal members argued that when the Shinnecock ceded land to colonial settlers, they retained their aboriginal right to fish in traditional waters. This case demonstrates how historical land cessions did not necessarily include the surrender of fishing rights.

Tribal Fishing Rights Status

The following table summarizes the current status of fishing rights for major New York tribes:

Tribe	Primary Water Bodies	Treaty/Legal Basis	On-Reservation Rights	Off-Reservation Rights	Current Legal Challenges
Seneca Nation	Niagara River, Allegheny River	1802 Treaty	Full tribal regulation	Limited rights on ceded territories	Ongoing discussions with NY DEC about conservation measures
Onondaga Nation	Onondaga Lake, Seneca River	1794 Canandaigua Treaty	Full tribal regulation	Contested in some areas	Water quality advocacy
Cayuga Nation	Cayuga Lake	1794 Canandaigua Treaty	Full tribal regulation	Partially recognized	Land rights litigation impacts fishing access
Unkechaug Nation	Mastic Creek, Long Island Sound	Colonial-era agreements	Full tribal regulation	Subject to litigation	2018 lawsuit against NY DEC ongoing
Shinnecock Nation	Shinnecock Bay	Aboriginal rights	Full tribal regulation	Contested by NY State	Silva case testing boundaries of rights

Geographic Scope of Native Fishing Rights

Native American fishing rights frequently extend beyond reservation boundaries, creating a complex legal landscape that distinguishes between on-reservation and off-reservation rights.

On-Reservation Fishing Rights

On reservation lands, tribal governments have primary authority to regulate fishing activities by their members. New York State law explicitly acknowledges this sovereignty, stating that tribal members may “hunt, fish, trap upon such reservation subject only to rules, regulations and fish and wildlife laws established by the governing body of such reservation.”

The Seneca Nation Fish and Wildlife Department has established comprehensive fishing regulations for its territories, including the Allegany, Cattaraugus, and Oil Spring reservations. These regulations may differ from state rules regarding seasons, catch limits, and permitted methods. Tribal fishing licenses, issued by tribal authorities, are required for fishing on reservation waters.

Off-Reservation Rights in Traditional Territories

Off-reservation fishing rights typically originate from two sources: explicit treaty language or implicit retention of rights when reservations were reduced in size without terminating fishing rights in the original areas.

The concept of “usual and accustomed places” has become central to understanding off-reservation rights. These are locations where tribes historically fished before European contact and treaty-making. While this concept is most firmly established in Pacific Northwest tribal fishing rights cases, New York tribes have made similar arguments based on their historical fishing practices.

For the Seneca Nation, the 1802 treaty specifically preserved the right to establish fishing camps along the Niagara River even after ceding the surrounding land, demonstrating how fishing access can be maintained even when land ownership changes.

The Shinnecock members’ case (Silva) claims aboriginal rights to fish in Shinnecock Bay based on the argument that when they “ceded land to colonial settlers, the tribe retained the aboriginal right to fish in the waters of Shinnecock Bay and its estuary.” This represents an assertion of aboriginal rights rather than treaty-specific rights, highlighting another legal basis for off-reservation fishing.

Boundary Waters and Interjurisdictional Issues

Many important fishing grounds in New York involve boundary waters that cross multiple jurisdictions, including:

Lake Ontario and St. Lawrence River: Border waters between New York, Canada, and tribal territories
Lake Erie: Shared between New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and tribal nations
Niagara River: Border water between the U.S. and Canada, with Seneca Nation rights
Long Island Sound: Complex jurisdictional area with multiple tribal claims

These waters often require coordinated management approaches between tribal, state, federal, and sometimes international authorities. In 2025, the Great Lakes Fishery Commission continues to serve as a model for collaborative management involving tribal nations, states, provinces, and federal governments.

State Regulation of Tribal Fishing

While Native American fishing rights are protected by treaties and federal law, states do retain limited authority to regulate these activities under specific circumstances.

Conservation Necessity Doctrine

The U.S. Supreme Court has established clear parameters for when states may regulate off-reservation tribal fishing. According to consistent precedent, “states may impose reasonable, nondiscriminatory regulations on off-reservation lands in the interest of conservation necessity.” This principle creates a narrow window for state intervention that must meet several specific criteria.

For state regulation of off-reservation fishing rights to be valid, it must satisfy a three-part test established through case law:

The regulation must be necessary for the preservation of the fish protected by the regulation
The regulation must demonstrate that applying it to treaty Indians specifically is necessary for fish preservation
The regulation cannot discriminate against treaty Indians

This framework ensures that state regulation remains focused solely on conservation rather than undermining treaty rights.

Recent Application in New York

In New York specifically, U.S. District Judge William F. Kuntz II ruled in 2023 that the state’s regulations on eel fishing could be applied to the Unkechaug Indian Nation. The judge determined that New York’s prohibition on taking eels under 9 inches (implemented in response to declining American eel populations) represented a legitimate conservation measure consistent with Supreme Court precedent. This case illustrates how conservation necessity can justify limited state regulation of tribal fishing.

The New York State DEC has developed specific 2025 Conservation Protocols for Tribal Fishing in consultation with tribal governments. These protocols, available on the DEC website, establish species-specific conservation measures, particularly for vulnerable species like American eel (Anguilla rostrata), lake sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens), and Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus).

The Washington v. Washington State Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel Association case (1979), though not specific to New York, established the important precedent that tribal fishing rights under treaties entitle tribes to “take a fair share of the available fish,” defined as up to 50% of the harvest but “no more than is necessary to provide the Indians with a livelihood-that is to say, a moderate living.” This “fair share” principle helps guide the balance between treaty rights and conservation needs.

Even with these regulatory powers, states cannot simply ignore or override treaty rights. The 6th Circuit Court’s ruling in United States v. Michigan established that state regulation is only permissible as “the least restrictive alternative method for species conservation” and cannot “discriminately harm Indian fishing or favor other classes of fishermen.” This standard places a high burden on states to justify any restrictions on treaty fishing rights.

Recent Court Cases Shaping Tribal Fishing Rights

Several significant court cases have recently shaped the landscape of tribal fishing rights in New York State, establishing important precedents for both tribes and regulatory agencies.

Unkechaug Nation v. New York DEC

The Unkechaug Indian Nation case against the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation represents a pivotal legal battle. In 2018, the tribe sued the DEC, challenging the state’s authority to regulate or restrict the tribe’s historical fishing rights.

Federal District Court Judge William Kuntz II initially denied the state’s motion to dismiss, allowing the case to proceed to discovery and depositions. However, by 2023, Judge Kuntz ultimately granted summary judgment to the DEC, rejecting the tribe’s claims that New York’s eel fishing regulations violated treaty rights.

The judge determined that the tribe’s rights stemmed from a 1676 English colonial government executive order, which he found was “not a treaty or federal or state law” and therefore could not serve as grounds for the tribe’s preemption claims. This ruling highlights the important distinction between rights based on colonial-era documents versus federally recognized treaties.

In 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit heard arguments in the Unkechaug Nation’s appeal of this decision. A ruling is expected in early 2025, which could significantly affect the interpretation of colonial-era agreements regarding fishing rights.

The Silva Case and Shinnecock Rights

The Silva case involving members of the Shinnecock Indian Nation has similarly tested the boundaries of tribal fishing rights in New York. David Silva was charged with fishing without a license and possessing undersized and over-limit eels in 2017. While his criminal prosecution was pending in state court, Silva and other plaintiffs filed a federal lawsuit alleging that they retained aboriginal rights to fish in Shinnecock Bay without complying with state regulations.

In a significant procedural victory, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the plaintiffs could proceed with their claims for injunctive relief against DEC officials. The court determined that their requested relief “would prospectively end the alleged violation” of their fishing rights without transferring ownership or control of Shinnecock Bay from the state to the tribe.

As of early 2025, the Silva case continues to progress through the federal court system, with significant implications for how aboriginal fishing rights are recognized and protected in New York State.

Emerging Legal Principles

These New York cases occur against the backdrop of influential precedents from other states. The Washington v. Washington State Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel Association case (1979) established that tribes with treaty fishing rights are entitled to “take a fair share of the available fish,” defined as up to 50% of the harvest.

The 1974 Boldt Decision (United States v. Washington) similarly established that treaty language securing “the right of taking fish at all usual and accustomed grounds and stations” provided for “an equal sharing of the resource between the tribes and the settlers.” Judge Boldt ruled that tribes could take up to 50 percent of the harvestable fish passing through their recognized fishing grounds, calculated on a river-by-river, run-by-run basis.

United States v. Michigan further refined the principles for state regulation of tribal fishing, establishing the three-part test for valid state regulation mentioned earlier. This test provides an important standard for evaluating New York’s fishing regulations as they apply to tribal members.

Tribal-State Cooperation and Management

The relationship between tribal and state fishing regulations has evolved toward more cooperative models, though challenges remain.

Co-Management Initiatives

The concept of co-management, where tribes and states jointly manage fisheries, has emerged as a promising approach to jurisdictional conflicts. Following the Boldt Decision in Washington State, the court required “the state and the tribes to manage the fishery together.” Similar approaches have shown potential to improve tribal-state regulatory relationships in New York.

In 2023, the New York State DEC and several tribal nations established the New York Indigenous Fisheries Collaborative (NYIFC), a working group that meets quarterly to discuss fisheries management issues affecting tribal and state interests. According to the DEC’s 2025 Tribal Relations Report, this collaborative has successfully developed consensus-based approaches to managing several key fisheries.

The Lake Ontario Committee, part of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, includes tribal representation alongside state and provincial agencies. This committee coordinates fisheries management across jurisdictions and has incorporated traditional ecological knowledge into its decision-making processes.

Identification and Enforcement Protocols

For fish harvested on reservations but transported off-reservation, New York requires specific identification measures: “Before fish and wildlife taken on reservations by Indians shall be transported or possessed off the reservation it shall be tagged for identification purposes in a manner to be required by the governing body of such reservation.”

In practice, these interactions sometimes result in enforcement conflicts. Chief Harry Wallace of the Unkechaug Nation has charged the DEC with a history of “harassment and intimidation” despite a formal agency policy to cooperate with native tribes. These tensions highlight the ongoing challenges in balancing tribal rights with state conservation goals.

To address these challenges, the DEC implemented the Tribal Fishing Identification Protocol in 2024, establishing standardized procedures for verifying tribal member status and fishing rights during enforcement encounters. This protocol, developed in consultation with tribal representatives, aims to reduce misunderstandings while ensuring conservation goals are met.

Traditional Ecological Knowledge Integration

A promising development in tribal-state relations is the increasing integration of Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) into fisheries management. TEK refers to the cumulative body of knowledge, practices, and beliefs evolved by adaptive processes and handed down through generations by cultural transmission about the relationship of living beings with one another and their environment.

The Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe Environmental Division has partnered with the DEC and U.S. Geological Survey to incorporate traditional knowledge into monitoring programs for key fish species in the St. Lawrence River watershed. This collaboration has improved understanding of fish population dynamics while respecting tribal perspectives and values.

2025 Regulations and Conservation Measures

Conservation requirements represent a critical interface between tribal fishing rights and state regulatory authority, creating a framework for sustainable resource management while respecting treaty protections.

Species-Specific Conservation Measures

The 2025 fishing regulations in New York include several species-specific conservation measures that apply to tribal and non-tribal fishers alike when justified by conservation necessity:

American Eel: The prohibition on harvesting eels under 9 inches, upheld in the Unkechaug case, continues in 2025. This measure responds to the 70% decline in American eel populations since the 1980s, according to the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission.

Atlantic Sturgeon: This endangered species remains fully protected from harvest. The 2025 regulations include enhanced reporting requirements for incidental catch and release of sturgeon.

Lake Sturgeon: After successful restoration efforts, limited ceremonial harvest by tribal members may be permitted in certain waters under jointly developed protocols between tribes and the DEC.

Walleye: In 2025, tribal and state co-management efforts have established new harvest guidelines for walleye populations in Lake Oneida and the St. Lawrence River, balancing traditional tribal fishing practices with sustainable population management.

Negotiated Harvest Allocations

Following models established in other regions, New York has worked toward negotiated agreements with tribes regarding harvest allocations for certain fisheries. The 2025 Lake Ontario Fishery Management Agreement includes provisions for tribal commercial and ceremonial fishing allocations, particularly for whitefish and lake trout populations.

For the first time, the 2025 fishery management plans include Traditional Use Designations for certain waters where tribal ceremonial fishing has priority during specific seasons. These designations, listed on the DEC’s Indigenous Nations fishing page, represent an important acknowledgment of the cultural and spiritual importance of fishing to tribal communities.

Environmental Protection and Habitat Restoration

Tribal nations in New York have been important partners in efforts to restore and protect fish habitat. The Haudenosaunee Environmental Task Force works with state and federal agencies on projects to improve water quality and fish habitat in the Finger Lakes and Lake Ontario watershed.

The Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe’s Environment Division has partnered with the DEC, EPA, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on habitat restoration projects along the St. Lawrence River that have improved fish spawning areas while reducing contaminant exposure.

The Seneca Nation Conservation Department has implemented stream restoration projects on tribal lands that improve trout habitat while reducing sedimentation in the Allegheny River system. These efforts demonstrate how tribal and state conservation goals can align and reinforce each other.

Cultural Significance and Modern Practices

Native American fishing practices in New York represent not only legal rights but vital cultural traditions that continue to evolve in the modern context.

Cultural and Spiritual Dimensions

For New York’s tribal nations, fishing is deeply embedded in cultural identity, spiritual practices, and community cohesion. The Haudenosaunee Guide to Sustainable Fisheries, published in 2024, explains how fishing practices are linked to ceremonies, creation stories, and traditional governance systems.

The annual First Salmon Ceremony practiced by several tribal nations honors the return of migratory fish and establishes proper relationships between people and the natural world. These ceremonies reaffirm tribal connections to ancestral waters and reinforce conservation ethics that have guided indigenous fishing practices for centuries.

Traditional fishing methods continue to hold cultural significance beyond their practical utility. The Seneca Nation Cultural Center offers educational programs on traditional fishing techniques, including night spearing with jacklight torches, basket traps, and weir construction. These programs help transmit knowledge between generations while educating the broader public about sustainable indigenous practices.

Economic Dimensions

Fishing rights also have important economic dimensions for tribal communities. Under Internal Revenue Code Section 7873, income earned from fishing rights-related activities is exempt from both federal and state taxes when these rights are secured by treaty, Executive Order, or Act of Congress.

The tax exemption extends beyond direct fishing income to include wages paid to tribal members for activities directly related to treaty fishing. According to IRS guidance, “Tribal members’ wages paid by another tribal member or a qualified Indian entity that are directly related to fishing rights-related activities are also exempt from income, Social Security, Medicare and unemployment taxes.”

Several New York tribes have developed small-scale commercial fishing enterprises that supply tribal markets and, in some cases, non-tribal customers. The Shinnecock Fish Market, established in 2023, provides economic opportunities for tribal fishers while sharing traditional seafood preparation methods with visitors to tribal lands.

Technology and Adaptation

Modern tribal fishing practices blend traditional knowledge with contemporary technology and scientific understanding. GPS mapping of traditional fishing grounds helps document historical use patterns for legal cases while enabling more efficient harvesting. Tribal fisheries programs increasingly use modern scientific monitoring methods alongside traditional observation to assess fish populations.

The Onondaga Environmental Institute has developed a smartphone app that allows tribal fishers to record catch data, report water quality problems, and access information about conservation regulations. This technological adaptation helps maintain traditional practices while addressing contemporary management challenges.

Resources and Further Information

For those seeking to learn more about Native American fishing rights in New York, several resources provide valuable information:

For tribal members seeking fishing licenses or information about specific regulations, the Teenfish Native American Fishing Rights Guide provides a comprehensive overview of tribal exemptions, identification requirements, and conservation guidelines.

Additional resources on legal aspects of tribal fishing rights are available through the Native American Rights Fund and the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, which has pioneered co-management approaches that could serve as models for New York.

Conclusion

Native American fishing rights in New York State represent a complex intersection of historical treaties, federal protections, state regulations, and tribal sovereignty. These rights continue to evolve through ongoing legal interpretation and court decisions that seek to balance treaty obligations with conservation needs.

The legal foundation for these rights rests on multiple sources: specific treaty language reserving fishing access, the principle of reserved rights that tribes retain unless explicitly surrendered, federal statutory protections, and state laws acknowledging tribal authority over on-reservation activities. This multi-layered legal framework creates strong protections but also generates jurisdictional complexity that sometimes leads to conflict.

Recent court cases have further defined the boundaries of these rights, with the Unkechaug and Silva cases continuing to test the limits of tribal fishing rights in New York waters. These ongoing legal battles demonstrate that the scope and implementation of Native fishing rights remain actively contested.

Looking forward, collaborative approaches to fishery management, similar to those developed following the Boldt Decision, show promise for reducing conflicts while ensuring sustainable fish populations. The integration of traditional ecological knowledge with scientific management approaches offers opportunities to develop more holistic and effective conservation strategies.

Despite these challenges, Native American fishing rights in New York State continue to represent vital cultural, subsistence, and economic interests for tribal communities. The ongoing dialogue between tribes, courts, and regulatory agencies will continue to shape how these ancient rights are understood and implemented in a modern context.