Perspectives of white males have overwhelmingly dominated fisheries science and management in the USA. This dynamic is exemplified by bias against "rough fish"-a pejorative ascribing low-to-zero value for countless native fishes. One product of this bias is that biologists have ironically worked against conservation of diverse fishes for over a century, and these problems persist today. Nearly all U.S. states retain bag limits and other policies that are regressive and encourage overfishing and decline of native species. Multiple lines of evidence point towards the need for a paradigm shift. These include: (1) native species deliver critical ecosystem services; (2) little demonstration that native fish removals deliver intended benefits; (3) many native fishes are long-lived and vulnerable to overfishing and decline; and (4) fisher values and demographics shifting towards native fish conservation. Overall, existing native fish policies are unacceptable and run counter to the public trust doctrine where government agencies manage natural resources for public use. We encourage agencies to revisit their policies regarding native fishes and provide suggestions for developing more holistic, protective, and inclusive conservation policy.

No abstract

Examination of jurisprudence in a single Ojibwe tribal court and the trials that take place in it over alleged violations of recently codified tribal law on off-reservation hunting suggests that many of these communities are becoming statelike and that tribal courts are instrumental in producing this transformation. As instrumentalities of tribal sovereignty, tribal courts facilitate the ongoing stratification of local Indian societies as particular kin networks consolidate their hold on political power. Enmeshed with the federal and state government in the realization of their sovereignty in the federal Indian-policy era of self-determination, tribes typically default to trading off the institutional cultural distinctiveness that has survived colonization even as symbolic and rhetorical expressions of cultural difference flourish and proliferate.

Section 106 of the 1966 National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requires that federal agencies “must take into account” the impact of their regulatory actions on historical properties, among them the “traditional cultural properties” of American Indian tribes. Conceiving of tribes' own social practices in terms of property creates the possibility for making claims about its loss for tribes, but it also problematizes their cultures' inherent dynamism that implicates its putative authenticity. This article offers commentary on the implications of practicing a form of action anthropology for the concept of culture via discovery and explication of such property under the NHPA. The context is a small American Indian community's effort to resist the development of a copper‐zinc mine adjacent to its reservation, on land that holds significant meaning for the community.

After the Second World War, increasing numbers of tourists traveled to the Northwoods of Wisconsin to recreate. Lac du Flambeau Chippewa Indians encouraged this process by availing themselves as fishing guides and by building in  the Indian Bowl, within which they staged Indian dances and related cultural performances. This article examines the historical and intercultural sensibility of consuming and producing a simulacrum of Indian culture in the Northwoods of Wisconsin in the s. It seeks to attend to the spectacle's significance and implications for local Indian identity over the course of the second half of the twentieth century.