With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". v. Gurmoe, 53 Wis.2d 390, 192 N.W.2d 892 (Sup.Ct.1972). Therefore, the Court elects to focus on the principles announced in the binding precedents when developing the standards to apply to the State’s hunting safety laws as applied to a tribal member exercising “in common” hunting rights. Before articulating these standards, the Court digresses to explain why a state has the authority to regulate “in common” hunting rights under appropriate standards for public-safety purposes. The Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit have emphasized that neither treaty nor non-treaty individuals may destroy the exercise of the “in common” rights of the other individuals. Fishing Vessel, 443 U.S. at 669, 99 S.Ct. 3055; see also Kennedy v. Becker, 241 U.S. 556, 563, 36 S.Ct. 705, 60 L.Ed. 1166 (1916) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Washington, 520 F.2d 676,

A: holding that neither the tribe or its tribal court was necessary to the determination of the tribal courts jurisdiction given that the district courts judgment would be binding on the absent party and they did not have a legally protected interest at issue noting that the tribe was not a party to a relevant agreement or treaty with any party to the suit
B: holding that this court does not have jurisdiction over plaintiffs claims because the court may review neither criminal matters nor the decisions of district courts
C: holding that because a waiver of immunity is altogether voluntary on the part of the tribe and thus the tribe may prescribe the terms and conditions on which it consents to be sued and the manner in which the suit shall be conducted    the issue must be determined in the forum that the tribe has chosen for determination of the viability of claims against it to wit arbitration
D: recognizing that neither the tribe nor the state may destroy the subject ie the fish over which they both enjoy the power to govern
D.