Drummond issued a binding formal opinion Thursday, saying the state's wildlife code does not usurp tribes' sovereignty over wildlife management on their reservations.
For months, tribal leaders have been butting heads with the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation over the hunting rights of tribal members on reservation land. The Cherokee, Chickasaw and Choctaw Nations sued the department's director and a special prosecutor last month over the ticketing of several tribal members for hunting on tribal land without a state license this fall.
Drummond wrote that he normally wouldn't issue an opinion on something with pending litigation, but he felt this issue warranted immediate clarification.
"Hunting season is currently underway," Drummond wrote. "Tribal citizens should not be deprived of their long-held rights while litigation proceeds and Oklahoma and wildlife departments need clear guidance on these issues as a matter of law."
Last month, the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation Commission unanimously passed a motion requesting the attorney general not interfere in the lawsuit.
The wildlife department did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Stitt's spokesperson wrote in a statement that the move was simply more political posturing.
"Drummond has spoken like a true politician — willing to ignore the law to get what he wants," Tevis Hill wrote in a message. "He issued an opinion – and it's just that, an opinion - on an issue that is already being decided in federal court, instead of waiting for the judges to rule, because that's what his donors wanted."
The formal opinion — which is legally binding for a state agency — comes after several members of Oklahoma-based tribes received citations for hunting on reservation land, where they believed they were allowed to hunt under the Five Tribes Wildlife Management Reciprocity Agreement. State Rep. Chris Kannady, R-Oklahoma City, requested an opinion on the matter from the attorney general
Drummond's opinion is largely built on the framework of a 1983 lawsuit, New Mexico v. Mescalero Apache Tribe. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that comprehensive tribal wildlife management plans preempt state regulations on the tribe's reservation.
"The [Cherokee, Chickasaw and Choctaw] Nations' codes address the same conservation objectives the State pursues, including species management, habitat protection, and sustainable harvest levels," Drummond wrote.
Cherokee Nation Principal Chief Chuck Hoskin Jr. praised the opinion in a statement.
"Our treaty rights, grounded in the U.S. Constitution and in federal law, protect the rights of tribal citizens to hunt and fish on reservation land, and no state law permits the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation to claim otherwise," he said.
Since 2024, members of the five largest tribes headquartered in Oklahoma — the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Muscogee and Seminole Nations — have been able to hunt on the reservations of all five tribes under the Five Tribes Wildlife Management Reciprocity Agreement.
That agreement emerged after Gov. Kevin Stitt declined to renew hunting and fishing compacts with the tribes in 2021 and 2022. Under those compacts, tribes purchased state hunting and fishing licenses and provided them to members at no cost or at subsidized rates, generating around $40 million for the Department of Wildlife Conservation over five years.
In October, the Department of Wildlife Conservation issued an update saying it would issue misdemeanor citations to tribal members hunting or fishing without state licenses on most reservation land. A department spokesperson said the policy was based on a federal court's decision in Stroble v. Oklahoma Tax Commission, which determined that only reservation land held in trust counts as Indian Country for civil tax issues.
"We've been following this case law closely," Oklahoma Department of Wildlife spokesperson Micah Holmes said at the time of the update. "We think that the Tax Commission has a direct effect on what we do — hunting and fishing. Because if you don't have a hunting fishing license, that's a misdemeanor. It's not a major crime."
Drummond wrote that Stroble and another case, City of Tulsa v. O'Brien, do not apply in the specific case of state wildlife code enforcement.
"Stroble addresses only state civil tax jurisdiction and makes no real effort to analyze the federal preemption principles that govern whether state law applies here," Drummond wrote.
Drummond clarifies that this opinion does not apply to state-owned land in Indian Country, where he says it's likely state wildlife code could be enforced.
This report was produced by the Oklahoma Public Media Exchange, a collaboration of public media organizations. Help support collaborative journalism by donating at the link at the top of this webpage.
