Symbolic Petition of Chippewa Chiefs, 1849

During the late 1840s, rumors circulated around Wisconsin that the Chippewa Indians whoinhabited land near Lake Superior were destined to be removed from their homes and sent toinland Minnesota. In 1849 a Chippewa delegation traveled to Washington to petition Congressand President James K. Polk to guarantee the tribe a permanent home in Wisconsin. Thesedelegates carried this symbolic petition with them on their journey.

The animal figures represent the various “totems,” as determined by family lineage, whoserepresentatives made the historic appeal. Other images represent some features of the tribe’sbeloved north woods. Lines connect the hearts and eyes of the various totems to a chain of wildrice lakes, signifying the unity of the delegation’s purpose.

This pictograph, originally rendered by the Chippewa on the inner bark from a white birchtree, was redrawn by Seth Eastman and appears in Henry Rowe Schoolcraft’s Historical andStatistical Information Respecting the History, Condition, and Prospects of the Indian Tribes ofthe United States, Vol. 1 (1851).

The following legend details the pictograph’s numbered images and what they represent:1. Osh-ca-ba-wis—Chief and leader of the delegation, representing the Crane totem.2. Wai-mi-tig-oazh—He of the Wooden Vessel, a warrior of the Marten totem.3. O-ge-ma-gee-zhig—Sky Chief, a warrior of the Marten totem.4. Muk-o-mis-ud-ains—A warrior of the Marten totem.5. O-mush-kose—Little Elk, of the Bear totem.6. Penai-see—Little Bird, of the Man Fish totem.7. Na-wa-je-wun—Strong Stream, of the Catfish totem.8. Rice lakes in northern Wisconsin.9. Path from Lake Superior to the rice lakes.

10. Lake Superior Shoreline.11. Lake Superior.

(Reprinted with permission from The State Historical Society of Wisconsin)

DedicationThis publication is dedicated to the

many Ojibwe people who have foughtto retain their treaty-reserved rights and

exercise them throughout the seasons.

A Guide to UnderstandingOjibwe Treaty Rights

Introduction The Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission (GLIFWC) was formed in

1984 to assist its eleven member bands in the implementation and protection of theiroff-reservation treaty rights. One of the most formidable obstacles to achieving thesegoals has been public misunderstanding and ignorance of treaties, treaty rights andtribal sovereignty. Ignorance opened the doors to unfounded fears and rumors whichhave fostered social and political pressure to abrogate the rights held by Ojibwe bands.

GLIFWC has provided a counterpoint to rumors and accusations through accurateeducational materials on treaties, tribal government and the regulation of treaty rights.This booklet has been a cornerstone of GLIFWC’s public education effort and has beenwidely used and distributed to member bands, schools, universities, and public librar-ies throughout the territories ceded by GLIFWC member bands.

Previously, GLIFWC published two treaty rights guide booklets, pertaining toWisconsin and Minnesota respectively. This edition addresses treaty rights in the cededterritories of the 1836, 1837, 1842, and 1854 Treaties.

AcknowledgmentsMiigwech, thanks, to the many people who have contributed their time and

knowledge towards the composition of this booklet. In particular, GLIFWCPolicy Analyst James Zorn; GLIFWC Biological Services Director Neil Kmiecik;and GLIFWC Executive Administrator James Schlender. Written by Sue Erick-son, layout by Lynn Plucinski and photos by GLIFWC staff.

For more informationContact GLIFWC’s Public Information Office, P.O. Box 9, Odanah, Wisconsin

© Great Lakes Indian Fish & Wildlife Commission, October 2002

54861 or phone (715) 682-6619. This booklet can be downloaded from GLIFWC’swebsite at www.glifwc.org. Copies can be ordered from PIO for $3.00each.

2

Table of Contents

Understanding treaty rights ............................................................................................ 3

Treaty rights in Wisconsin, Minnesota & Michigan..................................................... 8

Treaty rights in Wisconsin ............................................................................................... 9

Treaty rights in Minnesota............................................................................................. 14

Treaty rights in Michigan............................................................................................... 20

Great Lakes Indian Fish & Wildlife Commission....................................................... 22

The anti-Indian movement ............................................................................................ 27

Counterpoint to racism .................................................................................................. 30

Popular misconceptions................................................................................. Appendix I

An historical review ..................................................................................... Appendix II

Treaties ........................................................................................................... Appendix III

Resource materials ....................................................................................... Appendix IV

Front coverTraditional items on the cover are the handwork of Wassnoodeg Kwe (Northern Lights

Woman), an Ojibwe from Flint, Mich., also known as Judy St. Arnold. She is of the Nigig Dotemor Otter Clan.

The background is her traditional wedding dress, handsewn from brain-tanned deer hide,using bone and sand beads on the fringe. The bead pattern on the woman’s knife sheath is anold style floral design in colors common to the Great Lakes area and is one of four segmentswhich would compose a belt. The knife handle is carved antler. The barrettes make use oftraditional colors such as the pumpkin, cobalt blue, greasy yellow, pony trader blue, and darkred, with the occasional use of porcupine quills and tiny brass and silver beads. The barrettewith the bead stick is based on a pattern found on a quill box from the early 1800s.

Each piece of Wassnoodeg Kwe’s work has a particular spiritual significance to her, such asthe round barrette with two flowers representing her two daughters. Taught by her grand-mother, Wassnoodeg Kwe has been doing traditional handwork since she was eight.

22

3

Understanding treaty rights

“The utmost good faith shall always beobserved towards the Indians; their land andproperty shall never be taken from them with-out their consent; and in their property, rights,and liberty, they shall never be invaded or dis-turbed, unless in just and lawful war autho-rized by Congress; but laws founded in jus-tice and humanity shall from time to time bemade for preventing wrongs being done tothem, and for preserving peace and friend-ship with them.”

—The Northwest Ordinance, 1787

The Ojibwe1 people had long lived inthe upper Great Lakes region by the timeEuropean explorers first entered the area.Ojibwe communities dotted the shoreline ofLake Superior on both the Canadian andUnited States sides and were scattered southacross the northern third of Minnesota,Michigan and Wisconsin.

When first contacted by European ex-plorers in the 18th century, the Ojibweg liveda semi-nomadic lifestyle, moving from campto camp to harvest vital foods, such as maplesap, fish, venison, and wild rice, accordingto the seasons.

ensure that future generations would be ableto survive and always have access to thefoods important to the Ojibwe people.

Due to the foresight of those leaders,their descendants can exercise court-affirmed treaty rights in ceded territoriestoday. Ojibwe bands retaining treaty rightsand now members of the Great Lakes IndianFish & Wildlife Commission (GLIFWC)include: the Bay Mills Indian Community,the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, andthe Lac Vieux Desert Band of Chippewa inMichigan; the Mole Lake/Sokaogon, Lac duFlambeau, Lac Courte Oreilles, St. Croix, BadRiver, and Red Cliff Bands in Wisconsin, andthe Fond du Lac and Mille Lacs Bands inMinnesota.

The agreements made between theOjibweg and the United States are calledtreaties. Treaties are legally binding agree-ments made between nations.

Within the United States Constitutiontreaties are defined as the “supreme law ofthe land.” They are legally binding agree-ments and have always been respectedwithin the framework of U.S. federal law.Today, the rights kept by the Ojibweg tohunt, fish and gather on land they sold arereferred to as treaty rights.

Treaty rights were reserved in a seriesof cession treaties, including the Treaty of1836, ceding land in Michigan’s Upper andLower Peninsulas and parts of the GreatLakes; the Treaty of 1837, ceding land innorth central Wisconsin and east centralMinnesota; the Treaty of 1842, ceding landin northern Michigan and Wisconsin and thewestern part of Lake Superior; and theTreaty of 1854, ceding land in northeasternMinnesota and creating reservations formany Ojibwe bands. (see map page 4)

As more and more settlers pushed intothe Lake Superior region in search of tim-ber and minerals, the United States govern-ment bought land from the Ojibweg throughcession treaties. Vast quantities of land wereexchanged for promises of small amountsof money, schooling, equipment, and thelike.

However, in many of these treaties, theOjibwe leaders kept the right to hunt, fishand gather on lands they sold to the U.S.government in the mid 1800s. This would

1There are several terms used in reference to the Ojibwe people. In this booklet, the term Ojibwe and itsplural form, Ojibweg, will be used. The Ojibwe people often call themselves Anishinaabe (Anishinaabeg,plural) which in their language means Indian person or original people. An anglicized term for Ojibwegcommonly used is Chippewa. (GLIFWC uses A Concise Dictionary of Minnesota Ojibwe by John D. Nicholsand Earl Nyholm as a language reference.)

3

In legal words, Ojibwe treaty rights arecalled usufructuary rights, which means theright to use property. Similar property rightsare common in the United States. In Okla-homa, for instance, individuals sell theirland but keep frailing rights.

This means they have the right to comeonto the land and frail (or gather) pecanseven though the land has been sold. It is alsovery common for individuals or govern-ments to sell land but retain the mineralrights.

This means the new owner has surfacerights to the property (can build a house,farm and so on), but the holder of the min-eral rights can drill or mine for mineralsbeneath the surface if he or she chooses.

State and federal courts have upheldthe treaty rights of tribes in many signifi-cant court decisions across the nation. Sev-

eral of those cases have af-firmed the treaty rights of theOjibweg in the last several de-cades, including: the 1971Jondreau decision, MichiganState Court; the 1972 Gurnoedecision, Wisconsin StateCourt; and the 1981 U.S. vs.Michigan decision, U.S. FederalDistrict Court. All affirm tribalrights to fish in areas of theGreat Lakes.

Decisions affirming inlandhunting, fishing and gatheringrights include the 1983 Voigtdecision in Wisconsin, the 1997Mille Lacs and Fond du Lac de-cisions in Minnesota’s 1837ceded territory, and the 1999Supreme Court decision in fa-vor of the Mille Lacs Band.

Most treaties were signedprior to the formation of the

states of Michigan, Wisconsin and Minne-sota. At the time there were no state regula-tions over hunting, fishing and gatheringactivities.

As the territories became states andpopulations grew, the states passed lawsgoverning hunting, fishing and gatheringactivities and enforced them against theOjibwe people. Tribal members exercisingoff-reservation treaty rights were often citedinto state courts for violations of state con-servation laws.

By the mid-1900s, tribes began to chal-lenge in court the right of a state to enforcestate law on off-reservation hunting, fish-ing and gathering activities in the ceded ter-ritories.

These legal challenges gave rise to themany federal and state court decisionswhich reaffirm Ojibwe treaty rights today.

Treaty Ceded Areas

Treaty historyIn 1825 the Ojibweg participated in a

treaty that defined the boundaries of the“Great Chippewa Nation” and the “GreatSioux Nation.” In the 1825 Treaty, the UnitedStates recognized that the Ojibweg ownedvast acres of what is now Minnesota, Wis-consin and Michigan.

The United States encouraged the sign-ing of the 1825 Treaty in order to end con-tinuing land disputes between the Ojibwegand the Sioux and secure a “peaceful fron-tier” for settlers. The treaty set down defi-nite boundaries of land ownership for theOjibweg.

Later, non-Indian interest in the min-eral and timber resources in the midwestpushed the United States to enter into moretreaties with the Ojibweg in order to secureland for mining and logging. In 1842 theOjibweg ceded land north of the 1837 ces-sion line in what is now northern Wiscon-sin and Michigan’s western Upper Penin-sula. Provisions of the treaties did not indi-cate that the Ojibweg were to abandon theirhomelands.

Instead, the government agreed that theOjibweg could continue to “hunt, fish, andgather” in the ceded territories.

Around 1850, growing pressure fromnon-Indian settlement led to demands forthe removal of the Ojibweg from their cededlands. A disastrous effort at removal was or-chestrated in 1850 when President ZacharyTaylor issued a Presidential Removal Order.Ojibweg residing on the south shore of LakeSuperior were lured to the Minnesota Terri-tory, left waiting at Sandy Lake as bitterwinter weather approached, and then sup-plied with wholly inadequate and largelyspoiled rations. Hundreds died.

Concerned about rumors of removal, adelegation of Ojibweg traveled to Washing-

ton, D.C., in 1852 topetition Congress andPresident Fillmore forpermanent home-lands. The removal ef-fort was abandoned in1852 in the face ofwidespread protestsfrom Indians and non-Indians alike. Federalcourts have sincefound the RemovalOrder to be invalid.

“The rights of Indian people to take fishand game and gather food are, and have his-torically been, an integral part of their subsis-tence as well as their culture and religiousheritage. In turn they have formed a founda-tion for their trade and commerce. These rightswere widely recognized in treaty negotiationsand have been found by the courts to existeven where not specifically reserved in trea-ties.”

—American Indian Policy Review,Commission of the

United States Congress, 1977

Harvesting manoomin (wildrice). Manoomin continues tobe an important food forOjibwe people today and isharvested both on and off-reservation. (Photo courtesyof the Wisconsin HistoricalSociety)

5

In the 1854 Treaty, more Ojibwe landwas ceded, this time in northeastern Min-nesota. Reservations were also establishedin the 1837, 1842 and 1854 ceded territorieswhere the Indian people would be free fromnon-Indian intrusions and further threats ofremoval. The Mille Lacs reservation was es-tablished in the 1855 Treaty of “Peace andFriendship.”

As settlement grew, the vast territories ofthe midwest became the states of Michigan,Wisconsin and Minnesota, each with its ownsovereign powers and ability to regulate theircitizenry. Some territory of the Ojibwe nationwas artificially divided by these state bound-aries, and consequently, by the regulations thateach state imposed upon the Ojibwe peoplewithin its boundaries.

Agreements made with the federal gov-ernment in treaties were forgotten or setaside by state governments as they imposedstate regulations on hunting, fishing andgathering activities within state boundaries.Ojibwe band members exercising treatyrights off-reservation were arrested andprosecuted under state law until recentyears when the Ojibwe bands took theirtreaty claims into state and federal courtsand won.

Tribal sovereigntyUnderstanding treaty rights requires

understanding tribal sovereignty. Sover-eignty refers to the right of inherent self-gov-ernment and self-determination, or the free-dom from external control.

When the European countries first be-gan to occupy the land that is now theUnited States, they dealt with the native In-dian tribes as sovereign governments underthe guidelines of international law.

The tribes were respected as sovereignnations. When the United States became in-dependent of England and became sover-eign itself, the U.S. government continuedto deal with the native tribes on a nation-to-nation basis, respecting the sovereignty ofthe tribes.

During the Treaty Era of United Stateshistory, the United States entered into manytreaty agreements with the tribes. Althoughmany U.S. citizens today believe that alltribes were conquered by the United States,the U.S. government actually sought toavoid conflict in many instances through thetreaty-making process. In the case of theOjibweg, the treaties resolved land issueswithout the necessity of war.

Today, the federally-recognized tribesin the United States still maintain certainaspects of their inherent sovereignty and areconsidered by the U.S. Supreme Court as“domestic, dependent nations.” Tribes havebeen brought under the protection of theUnited States and are no longer fully inde-pendent of the United States.

Nevertheless, they retain certain pow-ers of sovereignty, including the right to de-termine tribal membership and to regulatethemselves in the exercise of treaty rights.

In the 1934 Indian Reorganization Act,Congress intended to better organize tribalgovernments through the establishment oftribal constitutions, tribal councils and anelection process. The Act fostered tribal self-regulation and decision-making, but often

“Self-government is not a new or radicalidea. Rather, it is one of the oldest staple ingre-dients of the American way of life. Indians inthis country enjoyed self-government long be-fore European immigrants who came to theseshores did. It took the white colonists north ofthe Rio Grande about 170 years to rid them-selves of the traditional pattern of the divine rightof kings. . .and to substitute the less efficientbut more satisfying Indian pattern of self-gov-ernment. South of the Rio Grande the processtook more than three centuries, and there aresome who are still skeptical as to the complete-ness of the shift.”

—Felix Cohen, “The Legal Conscience”

6

at the price of more traditional formsof tribal governance.

Today, many Ojibwe tribes exercise sov-ereignty by regulating the off-reservationharvests. Tribal conservation codes governoff-reservation seasons. Tribal conservationcodes are enforced by tribal or state conser-vation wardens, and violators are cited intoand tried in tribal courts.

Tribal governmentTribes maintain elected governments

which actively pursue the objectives of sov-ereignty—self-determination and self-regu-lation. This means tribal governments maketheir own decisions regarding the needs andgoals of their tribes, establish tribal laws andordinances, and make sure those ordinancesare enforced.

The sovereign power of tribes is thegreatest over tribal members and triballands. The powers of tribes over non-Indi-ans and non-Indian lands within reserva-tions remains the subject of legal and politi-cal debate.

The tribal governing body is often re-ferred to as a tribal council. On some reser-vations it may be called a reservation busi-ness committee (RBC) or tribal governingboard. The numbers serving on a council orRBC varies according to each tribal consti-tution, as do the length of terms.

Like other governments within theUnited States, tribal governments are con-cerned with a variety of community issues:economic development, social programs,law enforcement, natural resource conser-vation, education, health, roads, water sys-tems, and waste disposal issues, to mentiona few. They seek to serve the needs of theirconstituents and are answerable to the tribalmembers.

All eleven GLIFWC member bands have tribalcourts. Above is Armella Parker, Bay Millstribal judge.

at the price of more traditional forms oftribal governance

7

Treaty rights are exercised today inWisconsin, Minnesota and Michigan in vari-ous ways. In some instances, tribes exercisetheir rights under federal court orders. Thisis the case in the Wisconsin 1837 and 1842ceded territories and in the Minnesota 1837ceded territory.

In other instances, tribes exercise theirrights as a result of state court rulings, suchas in the Wisconsin and Michigan waters ofLake Superior.

These differences exist not as a resultof the tribes’ choosing, but because underexisting state law, each state can attempt toregulate the rights being exercised within

Treaty rights in Wisconsin,Minnesota and Michigan

state boundaries, even though particularceded territories were defined prior to theestablishment of state boundaries. There-fore, the tribes must assert their rights on aceded territory/state-by-state basis.

For example, the 1837 ceded territoryis located both in Wisconsin and Minnesota.The Voigt case affirmed the rights in theWisconsin portion of the territory and pre-vented the State of Wisconsin from interfer-ing with the rights. The Mille Lacs case af-firmed the rights in the Minnesota portionof the ceded territory and prevented theState of Minnesota from interfering with therights.

Bruce Sonnenberg and John Bearhart Sr., St. Croix tribal members, harvest walleye from McKenzieLake in Wisconsin.

8

Treaty rights inWisconsin

Six Ojibwe bands in Wisconsin exercisetreaty rights in Wisconsin ceded territoriesas a result of the Voigt ruling, and two ofGLIFWC’s member bands exercise fishingrights in the Wisconsin waters of Lake Su-perior under the Gurnoe decision. All off-reservation treaty harvests are closely moni-tored through tribal regulatory systems.

The Lake Superior treatyfishery in Wisconsin

The Lake Superior treaty commercialfishery in Wisconsin targets whitefish, laketrout and herring. The fishery has long beenimportant to the bands both for income andsubsistence.

The Red Cliff and Bad River Bands ex-ercise treaty fishing rights in Lake Superiorunder 10-year agreements with the State ofWisconsin which regulate the treaty com-mercial fishery. These agreements were ne-gotiated after a 1972 Wisconsin SupremeCourt decision, known as the Gurnoe deci-sion, affirmed the rights.

The present agreement determines har-vest quotas within specified fishing zones.The agreement also establishes a number ofeffort and gear requirements and requiresan exchange of biological information be-tween the bands and the state.

Tribal regulations implementing theagreement impose these requirements ontribal members for both commercial andsubsistence fishing. These regulations areenforced by tribal and GLIFWC wardensinto tribal courts.

Exercising treaty rights inWisconsin under Voigt

Under the Voigt case, Federal DistrictCourt, the tribes first exercised their rightsunder a series of “interim agreements” ne-gotiated with the Wisconsin Department ofNatural Resources (WDNR) while the casewas pending in federal court. Now, thetribes exercise their rights under the systemof tribal self-regulation and cooperativemanagement that the federal court ulti-mately approved.

From the 1983 Seventh Circuit rulingaffirming the treaty rights until the 1990 fi-nal judgment in Voigt, the tribes, throughthe Voigt Intertribal Task Force (VITF), andthe State of Wisconsin, through the WDNR,negotiated over 40 interim season agree-

Gilmore Peterson, Red Cliff commercial fisherman,pulls a net aboard his fishing tug.

9

ments. These agreements covered the har-vest of fish, deer, small game, migratorybirds, bear and wild rice in the Wisconsin1837 and 1842 ceded territories (except LakeSuperior). They established guidelines foreach off-reservation season that the tribesenacted into tribal conservation codes.

The first interim season agreement pro-vided for deer hunting in the fall of 1983.Although the tribes harvested only around700 deer during the first season, this initialtribal harvest under the Voigt decision en-gendered public controversy and misunder-standing surrounding the treaty rights.

The first spring spearing interim agree-ment was reached in 1985. Spring spearing,when tribal members are required to usedesignated boat landings, quickly becamethe focal point for public protest.

As the Voigt case proceeded through itsvarious subphases dealing with particularspecies and activities, the need for interimagreements disappeared. Each court rulingbrought approval of more permanent regu-lations for governing treaty harvest, and thetribes enacted these regulations in their off-reservation conservation codes.

The tribes’ off-reservation conservationcodes are one part of a larger, tribal cededterritory management system. The elementsof this system are:

Chippewa Intertribal ComanagementAgreement: This is formally called theChippewa Intertribal Agreement GoverningResource Management and Regulation ofOff-Reservation Treaty Rights in the CededTerritory.

Through this agreement, the tribespledge to work together to make sure thatthey comply with the Voigt case rulings. Thetribes recognize that they share the treatyrights and that intertribal cooperation isnecessary.

Natural Resource Management Plans:The tribes adopted ceded territory manage-ment plans for walleye, muskellunge, deerand bear. These plans state the tribes’ shared

management goals and set forth a commonunderstanding of the types of regulationsnecessary to meet biological requirements.

Harvest Declaration Protocols: Thetribes adopted harvest declaration protocolsfor fish (walleye and muskellunge), antler-less deer, bear, otter, fisher, migratory birds,and wild rice. The protocols require thetribes to tell the WDNR what the tribes in-tend to harvest in the upcoming seasons. Ifnecessary, the state can then adjust stateharvests to make sure that total harvest stayswithin biologically safe levels.

Conservation Codes: As part of theVoigt case, the tribes adopted a model, off-reservation conservation code that containsthe required regulations. The model codeoutlines the minimum level of regulationthat the tribes must adopt to comply withthe court’s rulings. Each tribe must enact itsown code that is no less restrictive than themodel code. A tribe can choose to be morerestrictive.

Tribal off-reservation harvest for anyresource, be it fish, fowl, furbearer or plant,is governed by these conservation codes.The codes set seasons, define allowable har-vest gear and methods, impose permit re-quirements, set bag limits, and impose avariety of other restrictions important forconservation of the resources, for publichealth and safety, and for meeting tribalneeds.

The Voigt decisionThe Voigt ruling applies to the hunting,

fishing and gathering rights of the Ojibwegon ceded lands covering approximately one-third of northern Wisconsin. It is named af-ter a defendant in the case, Lester P. Voigt,formerly WDNR Secretary.

The Voigt case in Wisconsin began in1973 when the Lac Courte Oreilles (LCO)Band of Chippewa filed suit against the Stateof Wisconsin for interfering with tribal hunt-ing, fishing and gathering activities guaran-teed in the Treaties of 1837 and 1842.

10

LCO lost in Federal District Court witha 1978 Summary Judgment in favor of theState of Wisconsin, and the action was dis-missed. The 1978 Judgment said that allrights under the treaties had been revokedby the Treaty of 1854, which establishedLCO’s reservation.

However, LCO appealed, and in 1983the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals re-versed the District Court’s ruling, holdingthat the rights reserved by the Treaties of1837 and 1842 had not been revoked or ter-minated and continue to exist.

The Appellate Court returned the caseto District Court for further proceedings todetermine: 1) the scope of the treaty rights;2) the extent to which the State may regu-late the exercise of those rights; and 3) whatdamages, if any, the tribes may recover as aresult of the state’s infringement of the treatyrights.

The State of Wisconsin petitioned theUnited States Supreme Court to review theSeventh Circuit Court’s decision. However,the Supreme Court chose not to review thecase, leaving the Seventh Circuit’s decisionintact.

Five other Wisconsin Ojibwe bandsjoined in the lawsuit, including the BadRiver, Lac du Flambeau, Sokoagon, RedCliff, and St. Croix Bands. The six plaintifftribes proceeded with the case in the Dis-trict Court to further define the treaty right.

The District Court divided the pro-ceedings into three phases:

Phase I: Declaratory Phase—deter-mination of the nature and scope of thetreaty rights;

Phase II: Regulatory Phase—deter-mination of the permissible scope of stateregulation;

Phase III: Damages Phase—amountof damages, if any, to which the tribes areentitled for infringement on treaty rights.

Nature and scope of the rights:Phase I

Phase I proceedings to determine thenature and scope of the treaty rights wereheld in December 1985 before Federal JudgeJames Doyle. Judge Doyle ruled that all re-sources in the ceded territory could be har-vested by tribal members using all modernmethods of harvest. Judge Doyle furtherruled that the resources could be personallyconsumed, traded, or sold in modern daymarket economy. Finally, Doyle held that thetribes are entitled to as much of the resourcesas will ensure their members a modest liv-ing.

Upon Judge Doyle’s death in 1987, thecase was assigned to Judge Barbara Crabb.The state sought to appeal Judge Doyle’sruling. However, Judge Crabb denied thisrequest and proceeded with the case at theDistrict Court level.

Tribal self-regulation: Phase IIOn August 21, 1987, Judge Crabb reaf-

firmed the standard principles apparent inother treaty rights cases from throughout thecountry.

She held that the state may regulate inthe interests of conservation, provided thoseregulations: 1) are reasonable and necessaryfor the conservation of a species or resource;2) do not discriminate against Indians; and3) are the least restrictive alternative avail-able.

Maple sap bubbles in a kettle during the spring season in the sugarbush.

11

Judge Crabb also ruled that the statemay impose regulations if they are reason-able and necessary to protect public healthand safety. However, she held that the tribespossess the authority to regulate their mem-bers and that effective tribal self-regulationprecludes state regulation.

By agreement of all parties and of thecourt, Phase II of the Voigt litigation wasdivided into “sub-phases” to address regu-latory issues specific to each resource.

Walleye/muskellungeThe subphase proceedings that focused

on walleye and muskellunge harvests wereheld in October 1988. Many of the issueswere resolved by mutual agreement priorto the trial.

On March 3, 1989, Judge Crabb heldthat, as long as the tribes adopted regula-tions incorporating the biologically neces-sary conditions established by the state attrial, including the Safe Harvest Level (SHL)calculations, the tribes would be allowed toregulate their harvest of walleye andmuskellunge.

Deer harvest/allocationOn May 9, 1990, Judge Crabb issued a

decision resulting from the deer subphaseand from various other issues presented forher resolution. As with her decision on wall-eye/muskellunge harvests, Judge Crabbsaid that state law could not be enforced pro-vided that the tribes enact a system of regu-lations consistent with her decision. Thetribes have done so.

The most significant aspect of the 1990deer decision was Judge Crabb’s ruling thatthe tribal allocation of treaty resources wasa maximum of 50% of the resource availablefor harvest.

Other fish speciesAs to fish species other than walleye

and muskellunge, the tribes and the stateagreed that quotas were not yet necessaryat this time. However, if the harvest in-

creases significantly, a quota system for thespecies involved will be implemented.

Timber harvestOn February 21, 1991, Judge Crabb is-

sued her timber decision. She ruled that theOjibwe tribes did not reserve a treaty rightto harvest timber commercially.

However, the tribes did have a treatyright to gather miscellaneous forest prod-ucts, such as maple sap, birch bark, and firewood; subject to non-discriminatory stateand county regulations.

Damages: Phase IIIIn 1990 Judge Crabb ruled on the dam-

ages phase of the litigation, deciding thatthe tribes were not entitled to any damages.

No appeal: Litigation concludesLater in 1991 both the tribes and the

State of Wisconsin announced their deci-sions not to appeal any of the three phasesof the Voigt decision. With no further ap-peals, the lengthy litigation, begun in 1973when the LCO band first filed suit, came toa conclusion.

The treaty spring spearingseason under Voigt

The spring spearing season has alwaysbeen the subject of the most controversy inWisconsin, despite statistics that show tribalharvest does not damage the resource. Forthe past 14 years, tribal members have ex-ercised spring spearing within a system thatnot only provides for conservative harvestquotas, but also for intense monitoring ofthe catch.

All landings open to spring spearingare monitored by biological and enforce-ment staff on a nightly basis. Daily permitsare issued to tribal members which specifylake and bag limits for each night. Beforeleaving the landing with a night’s catch,each fish is counted and measured to ensurecompliance with the bag limit and size re-strictions.

12

The Safe Harvest Level(SHL) system

Each spring tribes in Wisconsin are re-quired to make declarations as to theamount of walleye and muskellunge theyintend to take from each lake they name forspearing. The quotas are determined on thebasis of a Safe Harvest Level (SHL) figuredetermined for each lake.

The “Safe Harvest Level” system wasproposed by the State of Wisconsin andadopted by the court during the Voigt liti-gation. The formula is used by biologists tocalculate the number of walleye and muske-llunge that can be safely harvested fromeach ceded territory lake.

In the Minnesota 1837 ceded territory,the management system is based on a five-year plan, one component of which sets pre-determined, maximum limits on the poundsof walleye available to treaty fishermen peryear from Mille Lacs Lake.

The safe harvest system can be under-stood fairly easily. As agreed to by GLIFWCand WDNR biologists, 35 percent of a lake’swalleye population can be removed annu-ally without jeopardizing the ability of thatpopulation to maintain itself. This 35 per-cent rate of exploitation can also be calledthe Total Allowable Catch (TAC).

The SHL figure is, on the average, one-third of the TAC, and as such, is a very con-servative harvest limit. In theory, taking 100percent of the safe harvest has only a one inforty chance of exceeding the TAC. Thismanagement system ensures that spearfish-ing is highly unlikely to seriously impactfish populations even during natural down-turns in population.

The fact that tribal quotas are typicallyless than 60 percent of the safe harvest levelmakes it even more unlikely that any harmwill occur.

It is important to remember that in re-lation to the state-licensed harvest, the off-reservation harvests of popular sport spe-cies, such as walleye and muskellunge, havebeen small. Data for all of the off-reserva-tion spearing seasons in Wisconsin demon-strate that bands have never depleted orover-harvested any resource.

13

Treaty rights inMinnesota

In 1999 the United States SupremeCourt affirmed lower court rulings in favorof the bands which retained treaty rights inMinnesota’s 1837 Treaty ceded territory. Thisincluded the Fond du Lac and Mille LacsBands in Minnesota and the Bad River, LacCourte Oreilles, Lac du Flambeau, MoleLake, Red Cliff and St. Croix Bands in Wis-consin. The Supreme Court ruling cameafter nine years of litigation.

In addition, the Fond du Lac Band’s1854 Treaty rights have been recognized byfederal courts, although the litgation is notcompleted; and the Bois Forte and GrandPortage Bands exercise treaty rights inMinnesota’s 1854 ceded territory under anagreement with the state. For information

about their treaty rights contact the 1854Authority (see Appendix IV).

Minnesota 1837 Treaty cases:Mille Lacs Band v. State ofMinnesota and Fond du Lac v.Carlson

The Mille Lacs and Fond du Lac Bandseach filed a lawsuit seeking affirmation oftheir 1837 Treaty rights in Minnesota. MilleLacs filed its suit on August 13, 1990, andFond du Lac filed its suit on September 30,1992. The Fond du Lac lawsuit also involvedthe tribe’s 1854 Treaty claims, as discussedlater in this booklet.

These two lawsuits traveled parallelpaths through the federal courts, havingbeen assigned to different judges, and even-tually were consolidated on certain issues.

Both sought a judgment declaring thatthe 1837 ceded territory rights continued toexist, defining the nature and scope of therights, and defining the permissible scope,if any, of state regulation of the treaty har-vest. They also sought a court order prohib-iting enforcement of state fish and gamelaws against band members, except as speci-fied by the court.

In terms of timing, the Mille Lacs caseproceeded through the court first and drewthe majority of public attention. In 1993, theEighth Circuit Court of Appeals allowednine Minnesota counties and six individu-als to join in the case against the band.

In 1994, after many months of negotia-tions, an attempted effort to resolve the MilleLacs case through an out-of-court settlementfailed. The proposed agreement was ap-proved by the Mille Lacs Band, but was re-jected by the State Legislature. The agree-ment would have ended the Mille Lacs case.With its rejection, the litigation proceeded,with decisions ultimately being rendered inthe band’s favor.

The case was divided into two phases.Phase I was to determine whether the rightscontinued to exist, the general nature of the

Biological and enforcement staff monitor allspearfishing landings. Above, a Fond du Lac creel clerkmeasures walleye taken from Green Lake, ChisagoCounty in Minnesota.

rights, and where the rights could beexercised. If the rights were found tocontinue, Phase II would address issues ofresource allocation between treaty and non-treaty harvests and the validity of particularmeasures affecting the exercise of the rights.

A 1994 ruling in Phase I of the MilleLacs case by Judge Diana Murphy affirmedthe 1837 Treaty rights and found that therights included the taking of resources forcommercial purpose; were not limited toany particular methods, techniques or gear;and were subject to state regulation only tothe extent reasonable and necessary for con-servation, public health or public safetypurposes.

The court also ruled that the band couldprevent state regulation if it enacted its ownregulations that met conservation, publichealth and public safety concerns. The courtlimited the exercise of treaty harvest on pri-vate lands to those lands open to publichunting by state law, such as tree growthtax lands. This ruling set the stage for PhaseII of the Mille Lacs case.

Before Phase II proceeded, the six Wis-consin Ojibwe bands were allowed to jointhe case in 1995. These are the same bandswhose treaty rights were affirmed in theVoigt case for the Wisconsin 1837 ceded ter-ritory.

The Mille Lacs and Fond du Lac casescontinued on separate tracks until the sum-mer of 1996. At about the same time PhaseII of Mille Lacs litigation was to begin, JudgeRichard Kyle affirmed the Fond du LacBand’s 1837 Treaty rights.

Judge Kyle ruled that the Fond du LacBand’s rights in the 1837 ceded territorywere the same as those that Judge Murphyfound to exist for the Mille Lacs Band in her1994 ruling. At the state’s request, the courtthen joined the 1837 Treaty issues of the twocases for Phase II purposes and for these is-sues the cases proceeded on a consolidatedbasis.

In Phase II, the Mille Lacs, Fond du Lacand six Wisconsin bands cooperatively de-

veloped a proposed set of tribal regulationsfor the Minnesota ceded territory that waseventually approved by the court.

On January 29, 1997, Judge MichaelDavis issued a ruling on Phase II issues andordered that final judgment be entered inthe Mille Lacs case. The court approved astipulation between the bands and the statethat set forth agreed-upon tribal regulationsto govern the exercise of the rights, and, overthe objection of the state, the court also ap-proved two other regulations proposed bythe tribes—one allowing deer hunting inDecember at night while shining over baitand another allowing the use of gillnets inseveral lakes under 1000 acres in size.

The court ruled that if the bands prop-erly enact these regulations into tribal lawand effectively enforce them, state laws donot apply. It also ruled that an allocation ofnatural resources between treaty and non-treaty harvests was unnecessary at the time.

Fond du Lac tribal members prepare toreturn home after a night’s spearing.

15

Judge Davis also approved a disputeresolution process agreed to by the bandsand state. This process called for the estab-lishment of two committees, one for fisheryissues and the other for wildlife and wildplant issues. These committees would be theprimary cooperative management bodieswhere information would be exchanged,possible regulatory changes would be dis-cussed, and issues would be resolved.

The tribes and state agreed to mediateany unresolved disputes. If mediation fails,either party may ask the court to resolve thematter. The court agreed to maintain con-tinuing jurisdiction over these matters.

The state, counties and landowners allappealed Judge Murphy’s and Judge Davis’decisions in the Mille Lacs case. In April1997, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appealssuspended treaty harvest while the case wason appeal, except for limited ceremonialfishing for the Mille Lacs Band.

On August 26, 1997, the AppellateCourt upheld the lower court decisions intheir entirety and in October 1997 lifted thesuspension on treaty harvest. In November1997 the Eighth Circuit rejected requests bythe state, counties and landowners to recon-sider its ruling.

At Minnesota’s request, the U.S Su-preme Court agreed to review lower court

rulings regarding the 1855 Treaty, the 1850Removal Order, and the effect of Minnesota’sstatehood on the bands’ treaty rights.

On March 24, 1999, the Supreme Courtupheld the treaty rights of the Ojibwe inMinnesota’s 1837 Treaty ceded territory. Thisruling effectively ended all debate that thebands’ treaty rights exist.

Implementation of theMinnesota 1837 Treaty rights

Based on the January 1997 DistrictCourt ruling, the exercise of the 1837 Treatyrights is governed by a number of docu-ments and systems. These include: 1) thebands’ natural resource management plans;2) the Minnesota 1837 Ceded Territory Con-servation Codes; and 3) tribal/state coop-erative management agreements. Each ofthese is reviewed below.

Management plansstructure 1837 Treaty harvest

As provided for in the Mille Lacs case1997 final judgment, the bands adopted twomanagement plans—one applying to fish-ery issues and the other applying to wild-life and wild plant issues. Both were initialfive-year plans and are followed by secondmulti-year plans.

With the exception of a small harvestfor ceremonial use, no exercise of springspearing and netting was allowed in 1997due to a court-ordered stay. Therefore, inMarch 1998 the bands adopted a motion thatchanged the plan to begin with the 1998 sea-son, or the first year of the plan.

These plans provide the structure fortreaty harvest while safeguarding the re-sources. They establish the basis for regula-tions contained in band, ceded territory con-servation codes, particularly as to allowableharvest methods and the amount of speciesavailable for treaty harvest.

In some instances, such as for walleyeand antlerless deer, the plans set low initial

Gathering birchbark, another form of exercising off-reservation, treaty rights.

16

While the plans provided for a limited,gradual implementation of the rights, theyspecifically do not limit or waive the fullextent of the treaty rights.

Fishery management planThe fishery management plan estab-

lishes the framework for fishing in all wa-ters in the ceded territory for all species andmethods.

Particular provisions apply to MilleLacs Lake, to all other lakes, and to rivers.The plan also contains an intertribal agree-ment, much like the Voigt harvest declara-tion protocols, that describes how the bandswill work together to declare their harvestsfor the upcoming fishing year.

MethodsThe plan allows for a number of fish-

ing methods that may be used throughoutthe ceded territory. These include hook andline, open-water and ice spearing, setlines,set or bank poles, and various nets includ-ing gillnets, fyke nets and seines.

Some of these methods are limited tocertain species and/or locations. In addition,some harvest methods are governed bydaily bag limits, while other methods aregoverned by season caps, or quotas.

1837 Treaty spearing & netting

Mille Lacs LakeFor open-water spearing and netting in

Mille Lacs Lake, the bands’ principle objec-tives are: open-water walleye spearing, wall-eye netting, yellow perch netting, burbotnetting, and tullibee netting. These specieswill be managed by an annual quota whichwill be divided between each of the bandsselecting these methods.

Under the first five-year plan, the MilleLacs Lake walleye quota was set at 40,000pounds in 1998 and 55,000 pounds in 1999.

The tribal quota gradually increased to100,000 pounds in 2002.

A similar second five year plan for theyears 2003-2007 was developed by the tribesand provided to the State in December 2001.Under the new plan, a treaty harvest quotaof 100,000 pounds for Mille Lacs Lake wall-eye will be maintained through 2004 andcould increase to 115,000 pounds by 2007 ifspecific harvest criteria are met.

There is no open-water spearing or net-ting for muskellunge in Mille Lacs Lake.Muskellunge incidentally caught in a netmust be turned over to the bands.

There will be no open-water spearingfor northern pike, and the plan does not con-template netting targeted for northern pike.

Incidental netting harvest of northernpike will be limited to 50% of an agreed-upon target harvest level. If this cap isreached, netting must cease for all species.

Other lakesAs for lakes other than Mille Lacs Lake,

the fishery plan authorizes open-waterspearing, dip netting, fyke netting and sein-ing in ceded territory lakes.

In addition, gillnetting is authorized inall lakes over 1,000 acres as well as inShakopee, Ogechie, Whitefish, Grindstone,Eleven, Pine, Razor and South StanchfieldLakes.

Limited open-water spear and net fish-eries could take place at what the plan re-fers to as “threshold” levels. Spearing ornetting beyond these levels may take placeonly if a standard gillnet survey has beenconducted within the previous 24 monthsand a quota has been established. Gillnettingfor muskellunge and sturgeon is prohibitedin these lakes.

RiversOpen-water spearing and fyke-netting

are authorized for rivers, but no gillnettingin rivers is authorized. Lake sturgeon har-vest is closed in rivers except for the St. Croix

treaty harvest ceilings that gradually in-crease in following years.

17

below Taylors Falls. During the spawningseason, open-water spearing will be openon alternate days only. Muskellunge harvestin the Mississippi River may not exceed 10per year.

Notification/harvest closuresNo later than March 15 of each year, the

bands will notify the state of their declaredopen-water spearing and netting harvestsfor the upcoming fishing year, including thequotas and caps for each band’s open-waterspear and net fishery.

The bands must also notify the Minne-sota DNR no later than noon of the lakes orrivers designated for open-water spearingthat night and of the location of anygillnetting activities.

When a band’s quota for a species hasbeen reached in any lake or river, spearingfor that species in that particular body of

water must stop. When a quota for any spe-cies has been taken, all gillnetting by thatband for all species must stop as well.

Close monitoring of spearing andnetting activities

Similar to the treaty spearing and net-ting under Voigt in Wisconsin, all open-wa-ter spearing and netting will be strictlymonitored by biological and enforcementstaff. Spearing permits may not be issuedunless a monitor will be present at all des-ignated boat landings, and gillnetting mayonly take place if a monitor is available at adesignated boat landing or at the locationof the net lift.

All fish taken by open-water spearingor netting will be counted by species, withother biological data from harvest samplescollected at designated landings or net liftlocations.

18

Mille Lacs tribal members David and Mary Samparticipated in the first off-reservation deerseason in the Minnesota 1837 Treaty cededterritory during the fall of 1997.

GillnettingFor treaty harvest using gill nets, the

conservation code requires nets to be pulledtwice a day, or more if water temperatureconcerns warrant it.

Netters are required to bring their catchto specified landings each day where bio-logical staff will be present to monitor thenumber and weight of fish taken as well asrecord other data needed for fisheries man-agement. In addition, conservation wardensfrom GLIFWC and the Minnesota DNR willmonitor netters for compliance with thecodes.

Under the bands’ conservation code,spring gillnetting will limit band membersto the use of a relatively small mesh, 1.25-1.75 inches, which basically selects for wall-eye in the 12-18" size range. Because ofspawning patterns in spring these fish tendto be adult male walleye. In addition, lengthof net is limited to 100 feet. The use of shortnets will also serve to limit the number offish caught.

SpearingSpearers must use designated boat

landings to launch and land and possess anightly permit good for one lake and onenight, which will include the bag limit se-lected by the band for that night and thatlake.

Quotas are adjusted each day by sub-tracting the total amount of fish taken onprevious nights.

Spearers are also limited to walleye 20"or under, with two allowed over 20" and oneof those may be over 24".

Wildlife management planThe bands are in the second five-year

wildlife management plan that provides forthe harvest of bear, deer, moose, wild tur-keys, and furbearers. In the first five-yearpan the bands agreed to manage many spe-cies on a quota basis, including bear,antlerless deer, wild turkey, fisher, bobcat,and otter.

However, since the harvest of mostwildlife species has been negligible, the stateand the bands agreed that harvest quotaswere not needed. Rather, in the second five-year plan, harvest thresholds were estab-lished. With the exception of deer andmoose, there are not tribal quotas requiredor declarations made unless tribal harvestexceeds these thresholds. If tribal harvestexceeds a threshold in one year, a tribal dec-laration is required in the subsequent year.

Quotas for treaty wildlife harvestThe plan limits the 1837 Treaty annual

harvest of antlerless deer to a quota of 900deer and to no more than 50% of the totalquota in any management unit. This repre-sents less than 10% of the state’s average an-nual antlerless deer harvest in the ceded terri-tory.

The plan also requires the bands to no-tify the state of their 1837 Treaty antlerlessdeer quotas no later than August 10 of eachyear.

Tribal moose harvest is now openthroughout the 1837 ceded territories. Tribalmoose quota remains five, as in the initialplan. Deer declarations cannot exceed 50%of the harvestable surplus in any permit areaor more than 900 in total for all permit areas.

19

Treaty rights inMichigan

A number of GLIFWC member tribesare exercising treaty rights in Michigan, bothin the Great Lakes and inland. Some of thisexercise is under the explicit provisions ofcourt decisions that apply within Michigan.

Other exercise is under the precedentof court decisions decided in other states re-garding ceded territories that extend intoMichigan. For example, the 1842 ceded ter-ritory extends across northern Wisconsininto Michigan’s Upper Peninsula.

While the Voigt case specifically upheldthe bands’ 1842 Treaty rights in Wisconsin,it is extremely likely that those same rightswould be upheld in Michigan. Whether un-der specific binding court precedent or un-der the rationale of court cases interpretingthe same or similar treaties, band treatyregulations are designed to meet the state’slegitimate conservation, public health andpublic safety concerns.

Treaty fishing in Michigan’sLake Superior waters

The Keweenaw Bay, Red Cliff and BadRiver Bands authorize treaty fishing inMichigan’s Lake Superior waters. The 1842ceded territory includes a large portion ofLake Superior that lies off the shores of thewestern Upper Peninsula. In addition,Keweenaw Bay’s reservation is located onLake Superior and encompasses a portionof the lake. The 1971 Jondreau decision af-firmed Keweenaw Bay’s fishing rights inLake Superior.

Fishing in Michigan’s Lake Superior1842 Treaty waters is governed by compre-hensive tribal regulations. These regulationsestablish harvest quotas, set fishing seasons,establish permit requirements, and imposebiological monitoring requirements. Theregulations are enforced by tribal andGLIFWC wardens into tribal courts.

GLIFWC and tribal biologists conductharvest monitoring activities and fish popu-lation assessments. This data is shared withother fishery managers around the GreatLakes. This allows for band/state coopera-tion in assessing the status of the fishery re-sources and in setting harvest quotas.

The Bay Mills Band fishes in the wa-ters of the 1836 ceded territory under theprovisions of the U.S. v. Michigan federalcourt decision. That decision affirmed BayMills’ fishing rights in the eastern part ofLake Superior and the northern parts oflakes Huron and Michigan. The U.S. v.Michigan decision also affirmed the rightsof four other tribes—the Sault Ste. MarieTribe of Chippewa, the Grand Traverse Bandof Ottawa and Chippewa, the Little RiverBand of Ottawa and the Little Traverse BayBands of Ottawa-that are not members ofGLIFWC.

Annual population assessments are part ofGLIFWC’s fishery management program in LakeSuperior. Mike Plucinski, GLIFWC Great Lakesfishery technician, holds a brown trout capturedduring assessments near the Keweenaw Bayreservation in Michigan.

20

Inland treaty rights inMichigan

The Keweenaw Bay and Lac VieuxDesert Bands authorize treaty hunting, fish-ing and gathering in the portion of the 1842ceded territory in Michigan’s western Up-per Peninsula. There is no particular courtcase that specifically addresses these rightsin Michigan’s 1842 ceded territory.

However, the bands have enacted tribalregulations that are consistent with, or morerestrictive than, the regulations approved inthe Voigt case for the Wisconsin 1842 cededterritory. In addition, the bands undertakeharvest monitoring and biological assess-ments in the Michigan 1842 ceded territory.They share data with the state to ensure co-ordination and cooperation.

The Bay Mills Band authorizes treatyrights exercised in the inland portion of the1836 ceded territory in Michigan’s easternUpper Peninsula and northern Lower Pen-insula. Although the U.S. v. Michigan casespecifically addressed 1836 Treaty fishingrights in the Great Lakes, the underlyingrationale of that case also supports the ex-istence of inland hunting, fishing and gath-ering rights.

The bands’ 1836 Treaty fishery is imple-mented under strict regulatory and biologi-cal assessment requirements imposed by thefederal court. For information, contact theChippewa Ottawa Resource Authority(CORA).

21

Great Lakes IndianFish & Wildlife Commission

In order to effectively manage off-res-ervation resources and treaty seasons afterthe Voigt decision, the Ojibwe bands formedthe Great Lakes Indian Fish and WildlifeCommission (GLIFWC). GLIFWC is an in-ter-tribal organization through which the in-dividual bands jointly manage the off-res-ervation resources and treaty harvests in the1837 and 1842 ceded territories in Wiscon-sin, the 1837 ceded territory in Minnesotaand the 1836 and 1842 ceded territories inMichigan as well as treaty, commercial fish-ing in Lake Superior.

Formed in 1984, GLIFWC’s headquar-ters are located on the Bad River reserva-tion in Wisconsin. Satellite enforcement of-fices are maintained on 10 member reserva-tions and the Biological Services Divisionmaintains a satellite office in Madison, Wis-consin. GLIFWC maintains a permanent,full-time staff of about 60 employees, hir-ing seasonal part-time or temporary staffduring seasons when additional help is re-quired.

Resource managementGLIFWC’s Biological ServicesDivision

Both resource assessment and monitor-ing of treaty harvests are the responsibilityof GLIFWC’s Biological Services Division,which is divided into four sections, reflect-ing areas of primary concern to membertribes. These include the Lake Superior fish-ery, the inland lake fishery, wildlife/water-fowl/wild plants, and the environment.

Biological Services staff are primarilyinvolved with gathering data on the re-source within public lands and waters of theceded territories and then developing andinterpreting the data obtained. This infor-mation provides a basis for member bandsto make knowledgeable decisions regardingmanagement of given resources, such as set-ting quotas and seasons for various species.

Each section of Biological Services fo-cuses on specific areas of resource manage-ment as follows:

The Great Lakes Section deals with is-sues pertaining to the treaty commercialfishery in Lake Superior. The Great Lakesfisheries section is concerned with all wa-ters of the Great Lakes which are subject totreaty fishing by members of a Commissionmember tribe and tributaries which supportanadromous (fish which go up river tospawn) runs. Staff monitor treaty harvestsand perform annual fall and spring assess-ments on fish populations.

The Inland Fisheries Section attends tofishery issues in the inland waters of the ter-ritory ceded by the 1837 and 1842 Treaties(except Lake Superior). Spring and fall wall-

Mike Gustafson, Red Cliff tribal member, tagsa fisher trapped during an off-reservationtrapping season in Wisconsin.

22

eye population surveys on speared, in-land lakes, and monitoring the tribal fishharvests are primary responsibilities of in-land fisheries staff.

The Wildlife Section works with wildgame and furbearers; wild plants such asmanoomin (wild rice); and waterfowlwithin the public lands and waters of the1837 and 1842 ceded territories. Monitoringof off-reservation harvests is a primary re-sponsibility for staff; however, the wildlifesection is very much involved in enhance-ment efforts, such as wild rice reseeding,purple loosestrife eradication and wetlandsprotection. Studies of understory plants inthe Chequamegon Nicolet National Forestalso reflect tribal interest in the survival ofvarious plants traditionally used by theOjibwe people.

The Environmental Section addressesenvironmental concerns which impact anyof the resources within treaty-ceded territo-ries. This section is concerned with thehealth and integrity of ecosystems whichsustain fish, wildlife and wild rice in terri-tories ceded by the Commission membertribes. In recent years, studies relating to theimpact of proposed mining on treaty re-sources, mercury testing of walleye inspeared lakes and involvement with theLake Superior Binational Program havebeen major areas of effort.

The activities of each section of the Bio-logical Services Division are broken downinto six strategies:

Inventory/classification/monitoring—De-scribing the extent, nature, and status of fish,wildlife, and wild rice/wild plants of theceded territories from the tribal perspective,utilizing current data from other resourceagencies as available and applicable.

Harvest management—Monitoring off-reservation harvest and effort of tribal hunt-ers, ricers, and fishermen, and the biologi-cal impacts of the harvest; assisting tribesin developing permit systems, quotas, orother means of managing harvests.

Enhancement—Investigating and imple-menting means by which tribes and theCommission can expand distribution andenhance the productivity of resources in theceded territories.

Technical assistance to tribes—Providingtechnical assistance and advice to tribal gov-ernments regarding regulation and manage-ment of off-reservation fish, wildlife andwild plants, including technical assistancein negotiation and litigation.

Coordination and Liaison—RepresentingGLIFWC on inter-agency resource manage-ment committees and performing other li-aison assignments as delegated by the Com-missioners.

Public Information—Maintaining com-munication with other natural resourceagencies, tribal members who use treaty re-sources, the resource management profes-sions, and the general public to insure a tech-nically proficient, well-respected resourcemanagement program.

Training and Professional Conferences—Attending professional conferences andtraining sessions to present information andto obtain information on relevant techniquesand issues.

Off-reservation,treaty enforcement

GLIFWC’s Enforcement Division iscomposed of 20 full-time and 20-25 part-time temporary wardens. All full-time war-dens are fully trained and certified conser-vation officers. In Wisconsin four GLIFWCwardens are cross-deputized with the statefor conservation enforcement.

GLIFWC wardens monitor tribal hunt-ing, fishing and gathering activities on off-reservation ceded lands and waters.

Stationed on all member reservationsexcept the Fond du Lac reservation,GLIFWC wardens enforce codes adopted byeach tribal council for off-reservation treatyseasons both inland and for the tribal com-

23

mercial fishery in Michigan waters of LakeSuperior. With the exception of criminalcases, violations are cited into the appropri-ate tribal court system for prosecution.

In addition to seasonal enforcementduties, GLIFWC wardens participate intraining sessions throughout the year in or-der to sharpen skills and keep current onenforcement issues.

They also offer conservation-relatedcourses, such as hunter safety, snowmobile,ATV, and boating safety on member reser-vation. Many GLIFWC wardens are certi-fied instructors in these fields.

Planning &Development

The Planning and Development Divi-sion addresses the changing needs of mem-ber tribes in response to federal court rul-ings, increased demand for natural re-sources and social misperceptions held bythe non-Indian community.

The provision of technical planning ser-vices helps GLIFWC and tribal governmentsin areas such as: increased enforcement ca-pabilities; construction of fish hatcheries; ex-pansion of public education on treaty rightsand tribal resource management; promotion

of cooperative resource management; re-seeding of wild rice beds; and improvementof Lake Superior fisheries resource manage-ment.

This is accomplished by defining tribalneeds and formulating plans or proposalswhich provide a means to meet those needs.

Planning and Development also coor-dinates grant projects, such as those fromthe Administration for Native Americans(ANA). Consequently, the division is in-volved in a wide range of activities includ-ing public speaking tours in communitiesstressed by treaty issues; a native outdoorskills youth project; mercury testing in lakescommonly speared; and upgrading tribaland GLIFWC Geographical InformationSystems (GIS) capacities.

Division of Inter-governmental Affairs

The Division of Intergovernmental Af-fairs (DIA) assists member bands in effec-tively exercising the management and regu-latory jurisdiction which the tribes reservedin the treaties.

DIA work with the tribes, for instance,in the development of tribal regulations andtribal courts to adjudicate violations of thetribal regulations. Staff also assist in the ne-gotiation of state/tribal, federal/state/tribal, or inter-tribal agreements which al-low for tribal harvests of off-reservation re-sources as well as in litigation pertaining tothe treaties of member bands.

The DIA also assists on environmentaland habitat issues, including mining andwater quality issues.

Public InformationThe Public Information Office (PIO)

provides current, pertinent information totribal members and the general public ontreaty-related issues. Off-reservation sea-sons and regulations, issues which may im-pact treaty rights or harvest, and basic edu-

24

cation on treaty rights and tribal sovereigntyare the primary focus of public educationefforts.

Information is distributed through avariety of media, including Mazina’igan(quarterly newspaper), brochures, videos,booklets, posters, and public speakers. PIOanswers information requests on a weeklybasis, maintains a regular mailing for thenewspaper, distributes all publications tomember tribes as well as schools and librar-ies within the ceded territories, and providesinformation booths at sport shows, statefairs, pow-wows, or environmental fairs.

Cooperative resourcemanagement

The Ojibwe bands and GLIFWC workin cooperation with state, federal and localorganizations on resource management be-cause the resources are shared. The cededterritories are vast and so are the natural re-sources within them.

Cooperative management efforts oftenresult in a more comprehensive knowledgeof those resources, building a better foun-dation for informed management decisionsby all concerned.

The cooperative assessment of walleyepopulations in Wisconsin by the Joint As-sessment Steering Committee is a primeexample of cooperative management in ac-tion. Assessment crews and electrofishingboats from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ser-vice (USFWS), the WDNR, the St. Croix andBad River Bands, and GLIFWC all partici-pate in large-scale population surveys forwalleye in Wisconsin’s ceded territory ev-ery spring and fall. Data collected areshared, and recommendations are madefrom a technical working committee regard-ing lake quotas.

Cooperative walleye population assess-ments resulted from the work of SenatorDaniel Inouye (D-Hawaii), formerly chair-man of the Senate Committee on Indian Af-fairs, who sought to end the violent contro-versy in Wisconsin over spearfishing thatraged in 1985-1991.

He, with the support of the WisconsinCongressional delegation, secured fundingfor a joint assessment of lakes in northernWisconsin to determine whether tribalspearing was damaging the resources. Thereport from the joint assessment, entitledCasting Light Upon the Waters, was released

in 1991 with the conclusionthat tribal spearfishing wasnot damaging the fishery, butpressure on the fishery frommany sources required ongo-ing, careful observation andassessment.

GLIFWC and its memberbands have found numerousopportunities to work jointlywith other agencies or organi-zations on a wide variety of re-source management projects.Some of these are as follows:

Spring and fall electrofishing assess-ments of walleye in inland lakesprovide important population datafor fishery management. GLIFWCelectrofishing crew members TomHoule and Dave Parisien use nets tocollect stunned fish.

25

GLIFWC has worked for several yearsin cooperation with the U.S. Fish & WildlifeService (USFWS) Sea Lamprey Control Pro-gram to monitor and develop estimates ofthe lamprey population in Lake Superior.

GLIFWC biologists participate in com-mittees of the Great Lakes Fishery Commis-sion, an international body charged with themanagement and protection of the GreatLakes fishery.

GLIFWC continues to work with otheragencies to study bobcat, marten and fisherpopulations in Wisconsin and their interac-tion with other wildlife species.

GLIFWC works to control purple loos-estrife in the Fish Creek Sloughs and ad-vance public education on loosestrife con-trol.

GLIFWC, the USFWS, the Bureau of In-dian Affairs (BIA), the 1854 Authority, andregional tribes participate in producing the“Circle of Flight” initiative to enhance wa-terfowl populations and wetlands through-out the northern midwest. “Circle of Flight”is coordinated through the BIA.

GLIFWC regularly attends and is a par-ticipating member of the Mississippi FlywayCouncil.

GLIFWC, the U.S. Forest Service, andthe Wisconsin Department of Natural Re-sources cooperate annually on a large scalewild rice reseeding project.

GLIFWC participates in the BinationalProgram, an international initiative focus-ing on preserving Lake Superior and itswatershed.

GLIFWC participates in a wide varietyof fish and wildlife species managementcommittees in Wisconsin, Minnesota andMichigan, such as the St. Croix Zebra Mus-sel Task Force and the Ruffe Control Com-mittee.

GLIFWC participates in the USFWSWolf Recovery Team.

Cooperation not only distributes thework load but reduces tensions as peoplework together towards common goals. Thiswas found to be true in Wisconsin when hos-tility and protests at spearfishing landingswere at their peak. Leaders in several com-munities sought ways to redirect confron-tation toward goals common to both tribaland non-Indian communities.

For example, the Long Lake Chamberof Commerce contacted the St. Croix Bandand a joint electrofishing project of LongLake emerged with volunteer crews fromthe community, the St. Croix Band andUSFWS. Together they obtained a currentwalleye population assessment on the largelake and later also stripped eggs fromspeared walleye for hatching, rearing andrestocking.

Another grassroots project began inWisconsin when the Cable area Fish for theFuture organization approached the BadRiver and Red Cliff Bands with an idea forcooperative fish rearing and stocking.

The result has been joint egg gatheringfrom speared fish during the spearing sea-son. The eggs were fertilized and hatchedin tribal hatcheries. The fry were reared ineither tribal or Cable area ponds and stockedin lakes from which they were taken.

26

From what has historically been scat-tered, regional pockets of either disgruntledcitizens or racist organizations, the anti-In-dian movement has emerged as a nationalcoalition to abrogate the rights of Indiantribes. An umbrella organization calledCERA (Citizens Equal Rights Alliance) is anational body with many smaller, regionalanti-Indian groups as members.

The rise of anti-Indian organizationsand national networking correlates with therecent strengthening of tribal governmentsas they assert legally-affirmed rights. Forsome this is perceived as threatening, andconsequently the exercise of treaty rights off-reservation can let loose simmering racismand hostility.

Tribal rights encompass many areaswhich can be perceived as threatening tonon-Indian people. For one, the right to self-government is being asserted by manytribes. Treaty-reserved rights, such as thoseto hunt, fish and gather and tribal rights towater, land and minerals may be perceivedas threatening traditional state jurisdiction,as well as access to wealth.

The anti-Indian movement as we knowit today is actually a composite of small, re-gional organizations scattered throughoutthe country and generally centered on oneor two issues: Indian treaty rights or juris-diction.

The movement became most vocal andorganized during the early days of the Boldtdecision, a federal court decision in the Stateof Washington which reaffirmed the fishingrights of Indian tribes in the Northwest dur-ing the 1970’s. S/SPAWN (Steelhead/Salmon Protective Association & WildlifeNetwork), Redmond, Wash., was one of theleading organizations and remains activetoday.

Anti-Indian groups in Wisconsin in-clude Protect Americans’ Rights and Re-sources (PARR) and Stop Treaty Abuse(STA). Other groups, such as Equal Rightsfor Everyone (ERFE) and Wisconsin Alliancefor Rights and Resources (WARR), have dis-banded. While the protest launched by thesegroups became violent and racial during theearly years of Ojibwe spearfishing, a federalcourt ruling substantially fining STA lead-

ers helped curtail protest inthe 1990s.

In Minnesota, severalorganizations have been ac-tive in opposing the 1837treaty rights of the Ojibweg.A lead organization is ProperEconomic Resource Manage-ment (PERM), which is ledby Mark Rotz and has BudGrant, former coach for theVikings football team, as aspokesperson.

The anti-Indian movement,from STA to the KKK

Protest in Wisconsin often took anugly twist at spearfishing landingswith racism an obvious factor.

27

The Mille Lacs Lake Association andThe Hunting & Angling Club (THACC) alsooppose the treaty rights of Ojibwe in Min-nesota.

In Michigan, anti-treaty organizationshave been the Michigan United Conserva-tion Clubs (MUCC) and Enough Is Enough(EIE). Also, the Klu Klux Klan rallied in Iron-wood, Mich., in the fall of 1997 with nationalas well as state leaders speaking. Tribalspearfishing was ridiculed publicly and ra-cial comments about Indian people wereamong the many demeaning, prejudicedremarks from the KKK speakers during theevent. A new KKK chapter was formed inMercer, Wis.

Protest and racism inWisconsin

Violence at Wisconsin boat landings,which ultimately drew national attention,began as early as 1985, when rocks werethrown at Indian people present duringspearfishing at Butternut Lake, AshlandCounty. Protests, including violence, exten-sive verbal abuse, and threats escalated to apeak in the spring of 1989.

The “protest” activities included deaththreats, use of effigies, rock throwing, useof wrist rockets (a lethal, sling-shot typeweapon), pipe bombs and harassment offishermen on the lakes by creating largewakes. Some tribal fishing boats wereswamped. Ojibwe fishermen were hit withrocks or other objects both on and off thewater. Treaty supporters and Ojibwe fisher-men received death threats.

These protest activities were docu-mented in the federal court case brought bythe ACLU on behalf of the Lac du Flambeautribe and many tribal members to stop theactivities of STA and its members.

In 1991 the court issued a temporaryinjunction preventing STA and its membersfrom engaging in protest activities on the

landings. A permanent injunction was is-sued in 1992. However, a 7th Circuit Courtof Appeals decision overturned JudgeCrabb’s permanent injunction in 1993 andremanded the case to the district court for atrial on a question of fact involving the mo-tivation of STA and Dean Crist.

In 1993 Crist announced that the Ameri-can Rights Foundation was replacing thethen inactive STA/Wisconsin. The new or-ganization raised money to continue litiga-tion against treaty rights.

In a March 15, 1991, decision, FederalJudge Barbara Crabb described much of theprotest activities which was being called inquestion:

“Protesters have dragged heavy objectsthrough the spawning beds to stir up the lakebottom and make it difficult to see fish. Also theyhave played leapfrog with spearing boats, block-ing the path of a boat by pretending to fish byhook-and-line so that the spearer has to go aroundthe protester boat, and then moving quickly infront of the spearing boat again.

Another protest tactic is shining boat lightsinto the faces of spearers so that they cannot seeto fish or into the eyes of the boat driver so thathe cannot guide the boat. At some boat landingsSTA members launch boats and remain close tothe landing so that they can verbally harassplaintiffs and other spearers and impede theirprogress as they try to move their boats out tothe spawning areas.

On posters and in verbal taunts, STA mem-bers and other protesters have expressed racialinsults to plaintiffs, their family members andtheir friends, such as ‘Timber nigger;’ ‘Save awalleye, spear a squaw;’ ‘Spear a pregnantsquaw, save two walleye;’ ‘Custer had the rightidea,’ ‘Scalp ‘em;’ ‘Tom Maulson is a !?#%& Jew,he needs a Hitler;’ ‘You’re a conquered nation,go home to the reservation;’ ‘wagonburners’ and‘diarrhea face.’ Defendant David Worthen has aposter in his bar that reads, ‘Help Wanted: SmallIndians for mud flaps. Must be willing to travel.’

Families and friends of spearers have beenthreatened with violence and assaulted and bat-

28

tered. During the 1990 spearing season, protest-ers began the practice of blowing whistles loudly,often directly in the ears of spearing supporters.Protesters have encircled spearing supporters,causing them great anxiety.

Also, protesters have hit and shoved spear-ers’ family members and friends and yelled ra-cial and sexual insults at them. One seventeen-year-old boy was told by a protester, ‘I’m goingto remember you. I’m going to get you, youmother-&!?%#.’

As a result of anti-Indian protestactivities massive numbers of enforcementpersonel had to come to spearfishinglandings in Wisconsin each spring, includ-ing riot squads from the metropolitan areas,to help assure the safety of the Ojibwe spear-fishermen and families. This effort incurredmonumental expenses for the Wisconsintaxpayers.

The suit filed by the ACLU on behalfof the Lac du Flambeau tribe, Wa-swa-gonTreaty Association, and four tribal membersagainst Dean Crist and certain members ofSTA served to deter protestactivities. Violation of thisorder would result in arrestby federal marshals andcontempt proceedings infederal court. This served to keep the ha-rassers off the lakes and quiet the boat land-ings considerably.

Another court action resulted in STAleader Dean Crist being responsible for thepayment of $182,000 in damages as a resultof his protest activities during spring spear-ing seasons. An appeal ruling brought thecase back to trial before Federal Judge Bar-bara Crabb in August 1993 to determinewhether or not the protest launched by STAand Crist was motivated by a racial animus.Judge Crabb ruled early in 1994 that racismmotivated the STA protest activities.

Since 1991 the protest on spearfishinglandings in Wisconsin has dissipated. How-

ever, individuals and organizations con-tinue to actively oppose treaty rights andseek to abrogate the treaties through otherforums, both legal and political.

PERM leaders from Minnesota havevisited PARR functions in Wisconsin andvice versa. Both are members of CERA, thenational umbrella organization; both lobbystate and federal legislators heavily, andPERM was actively involved in the 1837 liti-gation in Minnesota. Those organizationscontinue to be politically active in opposi-tion to treaty rights.

White Supremacist movementand the anti-Indian movement

Leonard Zeskind, Center for Demo-cratic Renewal, Kansas City, feels there areconnections between some individuals in-volved in the anti-Indian groups and whitesupremacist organizations, which the Cen-ter tracks nationally. Terrorist type tacticsand agendas which simply relate to the an-

nihilation of Indian tribesand culture suggest thoseconnections. The recentpresence of the Klu KluxKlan in the heart of Indian

Country must also raise some serious con-cerns.

The Center for World Indigenous Stud-ies issued a report, Competing Sovereigntiesin North American and the Right-Wing andAnti-Indian Movement. The study states: “In-dividuals associated with the Anti-IndianMovement now appear to have occasional,if not frequent association with Right-WingExtremist groups. This tide of Non-Indianreaction rides on the back of discontent, rac-ism, economic troubles and uncertaintiesabout land and natural resource rightswhich are partly connected to the long-termstruggle between Indian Nations, neighbor-ing states and the United States govern-ment.”

Judge Crabb ruled early in1994 that racism motivatedthe STA protest activities.

29

At first the pro-treaty voice was smalland fragmented in northern Wisconsin incomparison to the blast of anger and racismfrom anti-Indian groups. However, orga-nized treaty support organizations began togrow as the racism and protest worsened.

Several brave Wisconsin women wereamong the first to publicly denounce theprotesters and support the treaty rights. Thethree formed an organization calledORENDA and refused to let PARR andERFE speak for the total non-Indian com-munity.

Other treaty support organizations,such as Citizens for Treaty Rights, began toprovide a counter-presence at boat landingsand served as witnesses of the violence andracism demonstrated at boat landings. They,along with other organizations and indi-viduals, provided a peaceful witness at theWisconsin spearfishing landings and offereda pro-treaty perspective to the media.

The Midwest Treaty Network, a coali-tion of many small treaty support groups,coordinated much pro-treaty activity in Wis-consin, providing public education on treatyissues and training for witnesses at landings.

Their presence at the landings in 1990resulted in a fully-documented report on theactions of protesters as well as enforcementofficials as they were observed. The Net-work is also active in treaty-related issues,such as mining and oil drilling as they im-pact the treaty-ceded areas.

In 1987 a national organization in sup-port of treaty rights formed in Wisconsincalled “Honor Our Neighbors Origins &Rights” (HONOR). HONOR seeks to workwith tribal governments on issues of tribalconcern.

HONOR has chapters in several statesand maintains an office on the Red Cliff res-ervation. HONOR focuses on public edu-cation, monitoring legislation at all levels,combating racism, and forming coalitions tosupport pro-Native American activities.

Counterpoint to racism:Treaty support groups

Providing public education on tribalissues has been a major componentof HONOR’s program. Tom Metz,HONOR, staffs a booth with avariety of educational materials.

30

Popular misconceptions aboutOjibwe treaty rights

The courts have granted the Indians treaty hunting andfishing rights.

Courts did not give hunting, fishing and gathering rights to the Ojibwe. Those rightswere never relinquished. The Ojibwe have always had the hunting, fishing and gatheringrights which were reaffirmed in the Wisconsin Voigt decision and the Minnesota 1837Treaty case. Those rights were retained by the Ojibwe when they ceded land to the UnitedStates through treaties made on a government-to-government basis.

Even though the Ojibwe never sold or gave up hunting, fishing and gathering rights,the illegal imposition of state law on tribal hunters/fishermen effectively discouraged off-reservation harvest by tribal members in years past, as they were liable to be arrested andprosecuted. This is why the treaty rights needed to be affirmed through court decisions.

Treaty rights are special rights enjoyed by Indians.Actually the hunting, fishing and gathering rights of the Ojibwe are known legally as

usufructuary rights and are a form of property right. Similar property rights include theretention of mineral rights on land when it is sold, or, as in Louisiana, retaining the right tofrail for pecans on land that is sold. Usufructuary rights allow people to keep the right tocertain uses even though they sell the land. Property rights such as these are enjoyed by usall and are not a special right of Indian people.

The Ojibwe have unlimited hunting, fishing and gathering rightson the ceded lands.

When the Voigt decision first hit the news in Wisconsin, the headlines proclaimed theOjibwe’s treaty rights to be unlimited. This, however, is not true. In fact, the Ojibwe, un-der the many court rulings in the Voigt case, exercise off-reservation rights in a limitedfashion, subject to quotas, seasons and tribally-adopted regulations.

In Minnesota, tribal harvest is also subject to the specifications of adopted court stipu-lations which limit treaty quotas, establish seasons and place other restrictions on thetreaty harvests. Two five-year management plans, one for the fishery and one for wildlife,provide the structure for a limited treaty harvest while safeguarding the resources.

When the 1924 Indian Citizenship Act was passed, the Indianpeople gave up their tribal citizenship.

This is simply not true, nor should it be. When the Indian people were granted citi-zenship by the United States, no provisions indicated that they must forfeit their tribalmembership.

The Act states that “granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in anymanner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property.”

Most U.S. citizens are “dual” citizens simply because they are simultaneously citi-zens of towns, counties, states, and a nation. Each of these entities maintains a govern-ment regulating its citizenry to one extent or another. Similarly, Indian people retain mem-bership in their tribes while also retaining U.S. citizenship.

APPENDIX I31

The treaties signed are old and should not apply to today’scircumstances.

Agreements between governments, or individuals, are not invalidated by age. Some-times new agreements are negotiated if both parties consent, but age alone does not ren-der an agreement or treaty invalid. The U.S. Constitution states that “treaties are the su-preme law of the land.” Recent federal court decisions define the scope and regulation oftreaty rights, making them compatible with contemporary circumstances.

Treaties should only apply to full-blooded Indians.It is important to remember that treaty rights are not individual rights; they are tribal

rights. The rights belong to the tribe as a body. Therefore, a person can exercise the trib-ally-owned treaty rights only as a member of the tribe under the regulations the tribe hasestablished. Determination of tribal membership is achieved through the tribe, as a sover-eign, self-regulating government. Tribes determine membership through varying criteria.Some, for instance, use blood quantum, while others may use birthright. Members of atribe which was signatory to a treaty reserving hunting, fishing and gathering rights canlegally exercise those rights under their tribe’s off-reservation ordinances.

The Indians should only be able to use the methods of harvestavailable at the time of the treaties.

Federal courts have ruled that the Ojibweg may use modern methods of harvest.Nothing in the treaties states that the Ojibweg could not use improved equipment or meth-ods. However, some argue that if the Ojibweg want to exercise rights retained in old trea-ties, they should use the methods and equipment of that time.

If that argument is pursued, the Ojibweg could likewise insist that all the develop-ment and exploitation that has diminished the resources on the ceded lands should beremoved as well. Rolling back time for one party of an agreement is neither logical norfair. If the Ojibweg are to go back in time, then the non-Indian side should also movebackwards in time. That would be very costly, indeed.

32

An historical review1795 Treaty of Greenville

Signed in Ohio, this is the first treaty agreement entered into with the United Statesby the Ojibwe. This treaty established boundaries between the United States and severalIndian nations.

1819 Treaty of the SaginawThis treaty was significant to the 1836 Treaty with the Ottawa and Ojibwe in that it

is used to established a portion of the southern boundary of the 1836 Treaty area.

1821 Treaty of ChicagoSignificant to the 1836 Treaty with the Ottawa and Ojibwe, this treaty, in conjunc-

tion with the 1819 Treaty of the Saginaw, is used to established the southern boundaryof the ceded territory in the 1836 Treaty with the Ottawa and Ojibwe.

1825 Treaty of Prairie du ChienRepresentatives of various tribes were called together to delineate their land hold-

ings for the U.S. government. The United States was encouraging them to stop inter-tribal warring at the time and felt delineation of boundaries would help. This treatyestablished a portion of the boundaries used in subsequent treaties. However, due to thedisbursement of the Ojibwe nation, the Ojibwe leaders present at Prairie du Chienrequested that United States government hold a council at some part of Lake Superiorto discuss and explain the 1825 Treaty of Prarie du Chien to the Ojibwe nation.

1826 Treaty with the ChippewaSigned at Fond du Lac, this treaty is the result of the stipulation of the Ojibwe

leaders at the 1825 Treaty of Prairie du Chien, calling for a council of the United Statesgovernment and the Ojibwe nation to explain the 1825 Treaty. In the 826 Treaty theOjibwe do agree with the stipulations set forth and the boundaries of the Ojibwe nationas established in the 1825 Treaty of Prairie du Chien.

1827 Treaty with the ChippewaThis treaty, signed at Butte des Morts on the Fox River in the Territory of Michigan,

established the border between the Menominee and the Chippewa. This treaty wasreferred to in the 1837 and 1842 Treaties setting portions of the boundaries ceded in thelater treaties.

1836 Treaty with the Ottawa and ChippewaSigned in Washington D.C., this treaty ceded large portions of what is now north-

ern Michigan and the eastern portion of Michigan’s Upper Peninsula to the UnitedStates. The tribes, however, stipulated “for the right of hunting on the lands ceded, withother usual privileges of occupancy, until the land is required for settlement.”

APPENDIX II 33

1837 Treaty with the ChippewaSigned at St. Peters, this was the first of several cession treaties which sold large

tracts of land in north central and eastern Minnesota. Although land was ceded, theOjibwe retained their right to hunt, fish and gather on ceded territories.

1837 Michigan gains statehood

1842 Treaty with the ChippewaSigned at LaPointe, this treaty ceded further lands in northern Wisconsin and in the

western part of Michigan’s Upper Peninsula. With terms comparable to those in the1837 Treaty, the tribes received payments to traders and half-bloods as well as a 25-yearannuity schedule, to be divided between the Mississippi and Lake Superior Ojibwe. TheOjibwe leaders specifically retained the right to hunt and fish on the ceded territory.

1848 Wisconsin gains statehood

1850 Presidential Removal OrderIn February of 1850, President Zachary Taylor ordered the Ojibweg living in ceded

lands to prepare for removal, disregarding a request from Ojibwe leaders who had cometo Washington, D.C., in 1849 to grant them lands surrounding seven of their villages,plus their sugar orchards and rice beds. The tribes insisted they had never intended toleave and had signed the 1842 Treaty only to accommodate copper mining pursuits.

1852 Presidential Removal Order suspended

1854 Treaty with the ChippewaSigned at LaPointe, this treaty formally abandoned the removal policy by establish-

ing permanent homelands (reservations) for the Ojibweg in Wisconsin, Michigan, andMinnesota. Remaining Ojibwe land in Minnesota was also ceded at this time.

1855 Treaty with the ChippewaSigned at Washington D.C., the treaty ceded land in the Minnesota territory for

monetary and other stipulations. Reservations were also established in Minnesota.

1855 Treaty with the Ottawa and ChippewaSigned in Detroit, this treaty reestablished the fishing and encampment rights

established under the Treaty of 1820 for the Sault Ste. Marie Ojibweg.

1858 Minnesota gains statehood

34

1866 Treaty with the Chippewa—Bois Forte BandSigned at Washington D.C., this treaty ceded lands to the U.S. and set aside lands

for the Bois Forte Band.

1924 Indian Citizenship ActThis Act of the U.S. Congress granted citizenship to all Native Americans in the

country. The Act passed partially because of the many Indian people who had servedduring World War I. There was no provision in the act, however, that required Indianpeople to relinquish tribal membership or identity.

1934 Indian Reorganization Act (IRA)The policy of the United States Federal Government supporting tribal self-regula-

tion was confirmed through this Act. It established, nationally, a policy of tribal self-government through a tribal governing body, the tribal council, and the ability of thoseelected governments to manage the affairs of their respective tribes.

1942 Tulee vs. the State of WashingtonThe U.S. Supreme Court decided that because a treaty takes precedence over state

law, Indians with tribal treaty rights can’t be required to buy state licenses to exercisetheir treaty fishing rights. This was also the first case to rule that state regulation oftreaty fisheries can only be for purposes of conservation.

1969 U.S. vs. Oregon (Belloni decision)Federal Judge Belloni held that the state is limited in its power to regulate treaty

Indian fisheries. The decision indicated the state may only regulate when “reasonableand necessary for conservation,” and state conservation regulations must not discrimi-nate against the Indians and must be the least restrictive means.

1971 People of the State of Michigan v. William Jondreau(Jondreau decision)

Reversed People v. Chosa (1930), 252 Michigan 154, 233 N.W. 205. The Jondreaudecision reaffirmed the right of the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community members to fishin the Keweenaw Bay waters of Lake Superior without regard to Michigan fishingregulations.

1972 Gurnoe vs. Wisconsin (Gurnoe decision)The Wisconsin Supreme Court decided in favor of the Bad River and Red Cliff

tribes. Based on the 1854 Treaty, the court found that fishing in the off-reservation wa-ters of Lake Superior was a protected treaty right and that any regulations that the stateseeks to enforce against the Ojibweg are reasonable and necessary to prevent a substan-tial depletion of the fish supply. The State of Wisconsin and the tribes have successfullynegotiated agreements for the treaty commercial fishing activity since the time of thedecision.

35

1975 Indian Self-Determination ActThis act by the U.S. Congress provided that tribal governments could contract for

and administrate federal funds for services previously provided through the federalbureaucracy. It allowed more individual tribal self-determination in both identifyingneeds and administrating on-reservation programs. It served to bolster and make moremeaningful the policy of tribal self-determination.

1974 U.S. vs. Washington (Boldt decision)This decision from the U.S. District Court upheld the right of tribes in the North-

west to fish and to manage fisheries under early treaties; determines they are entitled toan opportunity to equally share in the harvest of fish in their traditional fishing areas,and finds the state regulations which go beyond conserving the fishery to affect thetime, place, manner and volume of the off-reservation treaty fishery are illegal. Thisdecision was upheld by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Courtdeclined to review District Court rulings.

1981 United State vs. Michigan (Fox decision)The U.S. Federal District Court, Western District of Michigan, affirmed the rights of

Bay Mills, Sault Ste. Marie and Grand Traverse Bands of Michigan Chippewa to fish inceded areas of the Great Lakes in the boundaries of Michigan based on the 1836 Treaty.Judge Fox ruled the rights retained were not abrogated by subsequent treaties or con-gressional acts. Subsequent proceeding also upheld the tribes’ rights to regulate theirmembers.

The Voigt case in WisconsinMarch 8, 1974 LCO tribal members arrested

Fred and Mike Tribble, enrolled members of the Lac Courte Oreilles Band (LCO),were arrested on Chief Lake by Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR)wardens Milton Dieckman and Larry Miller for possession of a spear for taking fish oninland waters and for occupying a fish shanty without name and address attached. TheTribble brothers were fishing off-reservation and were later found guilty of the chargesby Sawyer County Circuit Judge Alvin Kelsey.

March 18, 1975 Lac Courte Oreilles files suit against theState of Wisconsin

The Lac Courte Oreilles Band filed suit on behalf of all its members in WesternDistrict Federal Court, requesting a court order directing the State of Wisconsin to stopenforcing state law against tribal members on the basis of the tribe’s treaty reservedrights to hunt, fish and gather off-reservation. Judge James Doyle was presiding andLester P. Voigt, then Secretary of the WDNR, was named as a defendant along withSawyer County Sheriff Donald Primley, Sawyer County District Attorney NormanYackel and the two arresting wardens.

36

Four years later Judge James Doyle ruled that the Lake Superior Chippewa Bandmembers had relinquished their off-reservation rights when they accepted permanentreservations pursuant to the Treaty of 1854 and that the 1850 Presidential RemovalOrder had also withdrawn the rights in question. Lac Courte Oreilles appealed Doyle’sdecision to the U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

January 25, 1983 U.S. Court of Appeals rules in favor ofLac Courte Oreilles

In its January 1983 ruling the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit agreed withthe Lake Superior Chippewa that hunting, fishing and gathering rights were reservedand protected in a series of treaties between the Chippewa and the United States gov-ernment. This decision has become known as the Voigt decision. A three-judge panelreversed Doyle’s earlier ruling, concluding that treaty rights were not relinquished inthe 1854 Treaty when reservations were established and that the 1850 Removal Orderhad not extinguished the reserved treaty rights. The Seventh Circuit also returned thecase to District Court to “determine the scope of state regulation” and the scope of therights. This ruling was appealed by the State of Wisconsin to the U.S. Supreme Court.LCO vs. WI (LCO I), 700 F2d 341 (7th Cir. 1983).

October 3, 1983The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal of the Seventh Cir-

cuit’s ruling, known as the Voigt decision. The refusal to hear the case affirmed theruling of the 7th Circuit.

Five other Ojibwe bands in Wisconsin who were signatories to the 1837 and 1842Treaties joined with Lac Courte Oreilles in the final arguments, consequently the rulingapplies to the rights retained by all six bands. The other bands include: Bad River, RedCliff, St. Croix, Lac du Flambeau, and Mole Lake.

1987 Doyle decision: Scope of the treaty rightIn February 1987 Judge James Doyle ruled on Phase I of the Voigt litigation regard-

ing the scope of the rights. Doyle found that the Ojibwe tribes could: 1.) use traditionalmethods and sell the harvest employing modern methods of sale and distribution; 2.)exercise the rights on private lands if proven necessary to provide a modest living; 3.)harvest a quantity sufficient to ensure a modest living. Doyle also concluded that thestate may impose restrictions which are proven necessary to conserve a particularresource. LCO vs. WI (LCO III), 653 F Supp 1420 (WD Wis 1987).

1987 Crabb decision: Scope of state regulationOn August 21, 1987, Judge Barbara Crabb issued an order establishing the legal

standards “for the permissible bounds of state regulation” of Ojibwe off-reservationusufructuary activities. In the order, Crabb decided that “effective tribal self-regulation.. .precludes concurrent state regulation.” Judge Crabb further ruled that the state mayregulate “where the regulations are reasonable and necessary to prevent or ameliorate asubstantial risk to the public health and safety, and does not discriminate against theIndians.” LCO vs. WI (LCO IV), 668 F Supp 1233 (WD Wis 1987).

37

1988 Crabb decision: Modest standard of living definedJudge Barbara Crabb determined that the Ojibweg’s “Modest living needs cannot

be met from the present available harvest even if they were physically capable of har-vesting, processing, and gathering it.” Thus, 100% of the resources in the ceded areawere considered available for treaty harvest within limits that require resource conser-vation. LCO vs. WI (LCO V), 686 F Supp 266 (WD Wis 1988).

1989 Crabb decision: Walleye and muskellungeOn March 3, 1989, Judge Barbara Crabb issued a decision relating to walleye and

muskellunge which incorporated parts of both the state and tribal plan.The decision required the “Total Allowable Catch” to be replaced by a far more

conservative harvest level termed the “Safe Harvest.” Previously, walleye were allo-cated on a lake by lake basis with 7% of the adult population set aside for tribal quotas,28% for sport harvest, and the remaining 65% for maintenance of fish stocks. However,the new Safe Harvest Level instituted another safety factor to be added to the 65% formaintenance of fish stocks, thereby reducing the combined harvest for tribal and sportusers alike.

The Safe Harvest Level, calculated using statistical techniques considering age/reliability of population data, significantly reduces the harvest level for many lakes. Forinstance the total safe harvest in some lakes may be only 8% of the population, versus35% in previous years. Using that Safe Harvest Level figure, the tribes may allocate upto 100% for tribal harvest quota. LCO vs. WI (LCO VI), 707 F Supp 1034 (WD Wis 1989).

1990 Crabb decision: Deer and small gameOn May 9, 1990, Judge Barbara Crabb issued a decision on deer hunting and trap-

ping of small game and furbearers under the 1837 and 1842 Treaties in Wisconsin.Judge Crabb ruled that the tribes may hunt deer the day after Labor Day until

December 31, but that they may not hunt at night by use of a flashlight. She also ruledthat the tribes may hunt on publicly-owned lands and on privately-owned lands thatare enrolled in Wisconsin’s Forest Crop Land and Managed Forest Land Tax Programs.At this time, tribes may not hunt on other privately-owned lands even if the ownerconsents. Similarly, the tribes may not place traps on the beds of flowages and streamswhich are privately-owned.

As to the apportionment and allocation of deer and other species, Judge Crabbordered that “all of the harvestable natural resources in the ceded territory are declaredto be apportioned equally between the [tribes] and non-Indians.”

It is unclear if the ruling applies to species other than deer, small game and furbear-ers. It is equally unclear to what extent, if any, previous rules on allocation of walleyeand muskellunge are overturned or otherwise affected. LCO vs. WI (LCO VII), 740 FSupp 1400 (WD Wis 1990).

38

1991 Crabb decision: Timber and forest productsOn February 21, 1991, Judge Barbara Crabb issued a decision on timber rights. She

ruled that the Ojibwe tribes did not reserve a treaty right to harvest timber commer-cially. However, the tribes do have a treaty right to gather miscellaneous forest prod-ucts, such as maple sap, birch bark, and fire wood; subject to nondiscriminatory state,and county regulations. The timber decision was the final step at the District Courtlevel. LCO vs. WI (LCO IX), 758 F Supp 1262 (WD Wis 1991).

May 20, 1991: Voigt litigation concludes with no appealsBoth the six Ojibwe Bands in Wisconsin and the State of Wisconsin were allowed

the opportunity to appeal rulings in the Federal District Court concerning phases ofVoigt. However, the deadline for filing appeals in May 1991 passed with neither partyappealing any issue.

On May 20, 1991, the Ojibweg announced their decision not to appeal with thefollowing message:

“The six bands of Lake Superior Chippewa, allied for many years in litigationagainst the State of Wisconsin in order to confirm and uphold their treaty right tohunt, fish and gather, and now secure in the conviction that they have preservedthese rights for the generations to come, have this day foregone their right tofurther appeal and dispute adverse rulings in this case, including a district courtruling barring them from damages. They do this, knowing that the subject of thelatter ruling is currently before the United States Supreme Court of Appeals andother federal courts. They do this as a gesture of peace and friendship towardsthe people of Wisconsin, in a spirit they hope may someday be reciprocated onthe part of the general citizenry and officials of this state.”

1837 Treaty Case in MinnesotaAugust 13, 1990 the Mille Lacs Band files suit

The Mille Lacs Band filed a suit against the State of Minnesota in federal court,claiming that the State’s natural resource laws and regulations violated the band’shunting, fishing and gathering rights guaranteed by the 1837 Treaty. In Fond du Lac vs.Carlson, the band sought a judgment that would affirm the 1837 Treaty rights, definetheir nature and scope, and define the permissible scope of state regulation of treatyharvest, if any. It also sought a court order prohibiting enforcement of state fish andgame laws against band members except as specified by the court.

September 30, 1993 the Fond du Lac Band files suitThe Fond du Lac Band filed a suit in federal court similar to the Mille Lacs suit but

sought affirmation of rights reserved in both the 1837 and the 1854 Treaties. Fond duLac also asked the court to define the nature and scope of the rights and the degree ofstate regulation, if any, permitted over treaty harvests.

39

1993 Minnesota Legislature rejects proposed negotiatedagreement

An effort to resolve the Mille Lacs 1837 Treaty issues out-of-court resulted in aproposed agreement between the State of Minnesota and the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe.The agreement contained many compromises between the parties. For instance, MilleLacs would have limited its spearing and netting to 4.5% of Mille Lacs lake and limitedits walleye harvest in that area to 24,000 lbs. per year. The State would have paid theBand $8.6 million a year and given them land in exchange for the limited harvest.

The proposed agreement was approved by the Mille Lacs Band but rejected in 1993by the Minnesota Legislature, which sent the parties back to court to settle the dispute.

In 1993 other parties intervene in caseThe United States joined the suit on behalf of the Mille Lacs Band in 1993, and a

group of counties and six landowners joined the State of Minnesota.

August 24, 1994 Mille Lacs 1837 Treaty rights affirmedThe Phase I trial of the Mille Lacs 1837 Treaty case began in June 1994 and con-

cluded on August 24, 1997 with a ruling from Judge Diana Murphy that the Mille LacsBand did retain its treaty rights in the Minnesota 1837 ceded territory. Murphy ruledalso that the treaty right includes the right to commercially harvest; that the rights werenot limited to any particular techniques, methods, devices, or gear; and that the statecould regulate treaty harvest only to the extent reasonable for conservation, publicsafety or public health reasons.

March 22, 1995, six Wisconsin bands interveneSix Ojibwe bands in Wisconsin, all signatories to the 1837 Treaty, were allowed to

intervene on the side of the Mille Lacs Band in a ruling from U.S. Magistrate JudgeLebedoff.

March 18, 1996 Fond du Lac’s 1837 and 1854 Treaty rightsaffirmed

Judge Richard Kyle, U.S. District Court, Fifth Division, affirmed the Fond du LacBand’s 1837 and 1854 Treaty rights. Judge Kyle ruled that the nature and scope of the1837 Treaty rights held by the Fond du Lac Band were the same as the Mille Lacs 1837Treaty right. However, he did not rule on the nature and scope of the 1854 Treaty right atthat time.

March 29, 1996 rights of six Wisconsin bands affirmedJudge Michael Davis ruled that the six Wisconsin Ojibwe bands’ 1837 Treaty rights

in Minnesota were already recognized in the Voigt case; that they extend to the Minne-sota portion of the ceded territory; and that they are the same rights as affirmed for theMille Lacs Band in 1994.

40

June 11, 1996 Mille Lacs/Fond du Lac 1837 Treaty cases joinedIn the summer of 1996 the Mille Lacs 1837 Treaty case and the Fond du Lac 1837

Treaty case were joined to be heard as one case. However, Fond du Lac’s 1854 Treatycase was kept separate.

January 29, 1997 ruling ends trial phase of 1837 Treaty caseJudge Michael Davis of the U.S. District Court of Minnesota ended the trial portion

of two 1837 Treaty rights cases pursued by eight Ojibwe bands by issuing a rulingwhich provided for the exercise of a treaty harvest. The scope and regulation of thetreaty harvest were defined in court-accepted stipulations. Because issues regardingscope and regulation were resolved through stipulations which defined them, thoseissues were not included in the final decision and therefore cannot be appealed.

April 9, 1997 the appellate court agrees to hear appealand suspends exercise of treaty right The State of Minnesota petitioned for an appeal hearing of the District Court rul-ings. The petition was accepted by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals and argumentswere scheduled to be heard by a three judge panel. The Court suspended the exercise ofall treaty harvest in the Minnesota 1837 Treaty ceded territory until the appeal had beenheard. However, the Court later issued another order allowing for a ceremonial harvestof 2,000 pounds of fish by the Mille Lacs Band only.

August 26, 1997 appellate court upholds District Courtdecision A three judge panel of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the ruling of thefederal district court which affirmed the 1837 Treaty rights of the Ojibway. On October27, 1997, the appellate court lifted its suspension on the exercise of the rights and onNovember 17, 1997 denied a petition that the case be reheard by all Eighth Circuitjudges.

February 16, 1998 Minnesota petitions the U.S. SupremeCourt to hear an appeal The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to consider three issues in an appeal relating to the1855 Treaty, the 1850 Removal Order, and the impact of Minnesota’s statehood on thetreaty rights.

March 24, 1999 the U.S. Supreme Court rules in favor of thebands The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed treaty hunting, fishing and gathering rights in theMinnesota 1837 ceded territory. This decision, entitled Minnesota v. Mille Lacs Band,served to end all debate, begun over twenty years ago when the Voigt case was filed in1974, that the bands’ treaty rights exist. The Court ruled in favor of the bands on allthree issues, finding that the 1850 Removal Order did not terminate the rights; thatMinnesota’s statehood in 1858 did not terminate the treaty rights; and that the 1855Treaty with Mille Lacs did not terminate the band’s treaty rights.

41

Treaty with the Ottawa, etc.March 28, 1836

Articles of a treaty made and concluded at the cityof Washington in the District of Columbia, between HenryR. Schoolcraft, commissioner on the part of the UnitedStates, and the Ottawa and Chippewa nations of Indians,by their chiefs and delegates.

Article First. [Designation of boundary linesceded to the United States.]

Article Second. From the cession aforesaid thetribes reserve for their own use, to be held in com-mon the following tracts for the term of five yearsfrom the date of the ratification of this treaty, and nolonger; unless the United States shall grant them per-mission to remain on said lands for a longer period,namely: One tract of fifty thousand acres to be lo-cated on Little Traverse bay: one tract of twenty thou-sand acres to be located on the north shore of GrandTraverse bay: one tract of seventy thousand acres tobe located on, or north of the Pieire Marquetta river,one tract of one thousand acres to be located byChingassanoo,—or the Big Sail, on the Cheboigan.One tract of one thousand acres, to be located byMujeekewis, on Thunder-bay river.

Article Third. There shall also be reserved forthe use of the Chippewas living north of the straitsof Michilimackinac, the following tracts for the termof five years from the date of the ratification of thistreaty, and no longer, unless the United States shallgrant them permission to remain on said lands for alonger period, that is to say: Two tracts of three milessquare each, on the north shores of the said straits,between Point-au-Barbe and Mille Coquin river, includ-ing the fishing grounds in front of such reservations,to be located by a council of the chiefs. The Beaverislands of Lake Michigan for the use of the Beaver -island Indians. Round island, opposite Michi-limackinac, as a place of encampment for the Indi-ans, to be under the charge of the Indian department.The islands of the Chenos, with a part of the adjacentnorth coast of Lake Huron, corresponding in length,and one mile in depth. Sugar island, with its islets,in the river of St. Mary’s. Six hundred and forty acres,at the mission of the Little Rapids. A tract commenc-ing at the mouth of the Pississowining river, south ofPoint Iroquois, thence running up said streams to itsforks, thence westward, in a direct line to the Redwater lakes, thence across the portage to theTacquimenon river, and down the same to its mouth,including the small islands and fishing grounds, infront of this reservation. Six hundred and forty acres,on Grand island, and two thousand acres, on themain land south of it. Two sections on the northernextremity of Green bay, to be located by a council of

the chiefs. All the locations, left indefinite by this,and the preceding articles, shall be made by theproper chiefs, under the direction of the President. Itis understood that the reservation for a place of fish-ing and encampment, made under the treaty of St.Mary’s of the 16th of June 1820, remains unaffectedby this treaty.

Article Fourth. In consideration of the forego-ing cessions, the United States engage to pay to theOttawa and Chippewa nations, the following sums,namely. 1st. An annuity of thirty thousand dollarsper annum, in specie, for twenty years; eighteen thou-sand dollars, to be paid to the Indians between GrandRiver and the Cheboigun; three thousand six hun-dred dollars, to the Indians on the Huron shore, be-tween the Cheboigan and Thunder-bay river; andseven thousand four hundred dollars, to theChippewa’s north of the straits, as far as the cessionextends; the remaining one thousand dollars, to beinvested in stock by the Treasury Department andto remain incapable of being sold, without the con-sent of the President and Senate, which may, how-ever, be given, after the expiration of twenty-oneyears. 2nd. Five thousand dollars per annum, for thepurpose of education, teachers, school-houses, andbooks in their own language, to be continued twentyyears, and as long thereafter as Congress may ap-propriate for the object. 3rd. Three thousand dollarsfor missions, subject to the conditions mentioned inthe second clause of this article. 4th. Ten thousanddollars for agricultural implements, cattle, mechan-ics’ tools, and such other objects as the President maydeem proper. 5th. Three hundred dollars per annumfor vaccine matter, medicines, and the services ofphysicians, to be continued while the Indians remainon their reservations. 6th. Provisions to the amountof two thousand dollars; six thousand five hundredpounds of tobacco; one hundred barrels of salt, andfive hundred fish barrels, annually, for twenty years.7th. One hundred and fifty thousand dollars, in goodsand provisions, on the ratification of this treaty, tobe delivered at Michilimackinac, and also the sumof two hundred thousand dollars, in considerationof changing the permanent reservations in article twoand three to reservations for five years only, to bepaid whenever their reservations shall be surren-dered, and until that time the interest on said twohundred thousand dollars shall be annually paid tothe Indians.

Article Fifth. The sum of three hundred thou-sand dollars shall be paid to said Indians to enablethem, with the aid and assistance of their agent, to

APPENDIX III42

adjust and pay such debts as they may justly owe,and the overplus, if any, to apply to such other useas they may think proper.

Article Sixth. The said Indians being desirousof making provision for their half-breed relatives, andthe President having determined, that individualreservations shall not be granted, it is agreed, that inlieu thereof, the sum of one hundred and fifty thou-sand dollars shall be set apart as a fund for said half-breeds. No person shall be entitled to any part of saidfund, unless he is of Indian descent and actually resi-dent within the boundaries described in the first ar-ticle of this treaty, nor shall any thing be allowed toany such person, who may have received any allow-ance at any previous Indian treaty. The followingprinciples, shall regulate the distribution. A censusshall be taken of all the men, women, and children,coming within this article, As the Indians hold inhigher consideration, some of their half-breeds thanothers, and as there is much difference in their ca-pacity to use and take care of property, and conse-quently, in their power to aid their Indian connexions,which furnishes a strong ground for this claim, it is,therefore, agreed, that at the council to be held uponthis subject, the commissioner shall call upon theIndian chiefs to designate, if they require it, threeclasses of these claimants, the first of which, shallreceive one-half more than the second, and the sec-ond, double the third. Each man, woman, and childshall be enumerated, and an equal share, in the re-spective classes, shall be allowed to each. If the fa-ther is living with the family, he shall receive theshares of himself, wife and children. If the father isdead, or separated from the family, and the motheris living with the family, she shall have her own share,and that of the children. If the father and mother areneither living with the family, or if the children areorphans, their share shall be retained till they aretwenty-one years of age; provided, that such portionsof it as may be necessary may, under the direction ofthe President, be from time to time supplied for theirsupport. All other persons at the age of twenty-oneyears, shall receive their shares agreeably to theproper class. Out of the said fund of one hundredand fifty thousand dollars, the sum of five thousanddollars shall be reserved to be applied, under the di-rection of the President, to the support of such of thepoor half-breeds, as may require assistance, to be ex-pended in annual instalments for the term of tenyears, commencing with the second year. Such of thehalf-breeds, as may be judged incapable of making aproper use of the money, allowed them by the com-missioner, shall receive the same instalments, as thePresident may direct.

Article Seventh. In consideration of the ces-sions above made, and as a further earnest of the dis-position felt to do full justice to the Indians, and tofurther their well being, the United States engage to

keep two additional blacksmith-shops, one of whichshall be located on the reservation north of Grandriver, and the other at the Sault Ste. Marie. A perma-nent interpreter will be provided at each of these lo-cations. It is stipulated to renew the present dilapi-dated shop at Michilimackinac, and to maintain agunsmith, in addition to the present smith’s estab-lishment, and to build a dormitory for the Indiansvisiting the post, and appoint a person to keep it,and supply it with firewood. It is also agreed, to sup-port two farmers and assistants, and two mechan-ics, as the President may designate, to teach and aidthe Indians, in agriculture, and in the mechanic arts.The farmers and mechanics, and the dormitory, willbe continued for ten years, and as long thereafter, asthe President may deem this arrangement useful andnecessary; but the benefits of the other stipulationsof this article, shall be continued beyond the expira-tion of the annuities, and it is understood that thewhole of this article shall stand in force, and inure tothe benefit of the Indians, as long after the expira-tion of the twenty years as Congress may appropri-ate for the objects.

Article Eighth. It is agreed, that as soon as thesaid Indians desire it, a deputation shall be sent tothe southwest of the Missouri River, there to select asuitable place for the final settlement of said Indi-ans, which country, so selected and of reasonableextent, the United States will forever guaranty andsecure to said Indians. Such improvements as addvalue to the land, hereby ceded, shall be appraised,and the amount paid to the proper Indian. But suchpayment shall, in no case, be assigned to, or paid to,a white man. If the church on the Cheboigan, shouldfall within this cession, the value shall be paid to theband owning it. The net proceeds of the sale of theone hundred and sixty acres of land, upon the GrandRiver upon which the missionary society haveerected their buildings, shall be paid to the said soci-ety, in lieu of the value of their said improvements.When the Indians wish it, the United States will re-move them, at their expense, provide them a year’ssubsistence in the country to which they go, an fur-nish the same articles and equipments to each per-son as are stipulated to be given to the Pottowatomiesin the final treaty of cession concluded at Chicago.

Article Ninth. Whereas, the Ottawas andChippewas, feeling a strong consideration for aidrendered by certain of their half-breeds on Grandriver, and other parts of the country ceded, and wish-ing to testify their gratitude on the present occasion,have assigned such individuals certain locations ofland, and united in a strong appeal for the allow-ance of the same in this treaty; and whereas no suchreservation can be permitted in carrying out the spe-cial directions of the President on this subject, it isagreed, that, in addition to the general fund set apartfor half-breed claims, in the sixth article, the sum of

43

forty-eight thousand one hundred and forty-eightdollars shall be paid for the extinguishment of thisclass of claims, to be divided in the following man-ner: To Rix Robinson, in lieu of a section of land,granted to his Indian family, on the Grand river rap-ids, (estimated by good judges to be worth half amillion,) at the rate of thirty six dollars an acre: ToLeonard Slater, in trust for Chiminonoquat, for a sec-tion of land above said rapids, at the rate of ten dol-lars an acre: To John A. Drew, for a tract of one sec-tion and three quarters, to his Indian family, atCheboigan rapids, at the rate of four dollars; to Ed-ward Biddle, for one section to his Indian family atthe fishing grounds, at the rate of three dollars: ToJohn Holiday, for five sections of land to five per-sons of his Indian family, at the rate of one dollarand twenty-five cents; to Eliza Cook, Sophia Biddle,and Mary Holiday, one section of land each, at twodollars and fifty cents: To Augustin Hamelin junr,being of Indian descent, two sections, at one dollarand twenty-five cents; to William Lasley, JosephDaily, Joseph Trotier, Henry A. Levake, for two sec-tions each, for their Indian families, at one dollar andtwenty-five cents: To Luther Rice, Joseph Lafrombois,Charles Butterfield, being of Indian descent, and toGeorge Moran, Louis Moran, G. D. Williams, for half-breed children under their care, and to DanielMarsac, for his Indian child, one section each, at onedollar and twenty-five cents.

Article Tenth. The sum of thirty thousand dol-lars shall be paid to the chiefs, on the ratification ofthis treaty, to be divided agreeably to a schedule here-unto annexed.

Article Eleventh. The Ottawas having consid-eration for one of their aged chiefs, who is reducedto poverty, and it being known that he was a firmfriend of the American Government, in that quarter,during the late war, and suffered much in conse-quence of his sentiments, it is agreed, that an annu-ity of one hundred dollars per annum shall be paidto Ningweegon or the Wing, during his natural life,in money or goods, as he may choose. Another ofthe chiefs of said nation, who attended the treaty ofGreenville in 1793, and is now, at a very advancedage, reduced to extreme want, together with his wife,and the Government being apprized that he haspleaded a promise of Gen. Wayne, in his behalf, it isagreed that Chusco of Michilimackinac shall receivean annuity of fifty dollars per annum during his natu-ral life.

Article Twelfth. All expenses attending thejourneys of the Indians from, and to their homes, andtheir visit at the seat of Government, together withthe expenses of the treaty, including a proper quan-tity of clothing to be given them, will be paid by theUnited States.

Article Thirteenth. The Indians stipulate forthe right of hunting on the lands ceded, with theother usual privileges of occupancy, until the landis required for settlement.

In testimony whereof, the said Henry R.Schoolcraft, commissioner on the part of the UnitedStates, and the chiefs and delegates of the Ottawaand Chippewa nation of Indians, have hereunto settheir hands, at Washington the seat of Government,this twenty-eighth day of March, in the year onethousand eight hundred and thirty-six.

44

Treaty with the ChippewaJuly 29, 1837

Articles of a treaty made and concluded at St. Pe-ters (the confluence of the St. Peters and Mississippi riv-ers) in the Territory of Wisconsin, between the UnitedStates of America, by their commissioner, Henry Dodge,Governor of said Territory, and the Chippewa nation ofIndians, by their chiefs and headmen.

ARTICLE 1. The said Chippewa nation cedeto the United States all the tract of country includedwithin the following boundaries:

Beginning at the junction of the Crow Wing andMississippi rivers, between twenty and thirty milesabove where the Mississippi is crossed by the forty-sixth parallel of north latitude, and running thenceto the north point of Lake St. Croix, one of the sourcesof the St. Croix river; thence to and along the divid-ing ridge between the waters of Lake Superior andthose of the Mississippi, to the sources of the Ocha-sua-sepe a tributary of the Chippewa river; thenceto a point on the Chippewa river, twenty miles be-low the outlet of Lake De Flambeau; thence to thejunction of the Wisconsin and Pelican rivers; thenceon an east course twenty-five miles; thence south-erly, on a course parallel with that of the Wisconsinriver, to the line dividing the territories of theChippewas and Menominies; thence to the PloverPortage; thence along the southern boundary of theChippewa country, to the commencement of theboundary line dividing it from that of the Sioux, halfa days march below the falls on the Chippewa river;thence with said boundary line to the mouth of Wah-tap river; at its junction with the Mississippi; andthence up the Mississippi to the place of beginning.

ARTICLE 2. In consideration of the cessionaforesaid, the United States agrees to make to theChippewa nation, annually, for the term of twentyyears, from the date of the ratification of this treaty,the following payments.

1. Nine thousand five hundred dollars, to bepaid in money.

2. Nineteen thousand dollars, to be deliveredin goods.

3. Three thousand dollars for establishing threeblacksmith shops, supporting the blacksmiths, andfurnishing them with iron and steel.

4. One thousand dollars for farmers, and forsupplying them and the Indians, with implementsof labor, with grain or seed; and whatever else maybe necessary to enable them to carry on their agri-cultural pursuits.

5. Two thousand dollars in provisions.6. Five hundred dollars in tobacco.The provisions and tobacco to be delivered at

the same time with the goods, and the money to bepaid; which time or times, as well as the place orplaces where they are to be delivered, shall be fixedupon under the direction of the President of theUnited States.

The blacksmiths shops to be placed at suchpoints in the Chippewa country as shall be desig-nated by the Superintendent of Indian Affairs, orunder his direction.

If at the expiration of one or more years theIndians should prefer to receive goods, instead ofthe nine thousand dollars agreed to be paid to themin money, they shall be at liberty to do so. Or, shouldthey conclude to appropriate a portion of that annu-ity to the establishment and support of a school orschools among them, this shall be granted them.

ARTICLE 3. The sum of one hundred thou-sand dollars shall be paid by the United States, tothe half-breeds of the Chippewa nation, under thedirection of the President. It is the wish of the Indi-ans that their two sub-agents Daniel P. Bushnell, andMiles M. Vineyard, superintend the distribution ofthis money among their half-breed relations.

ARTICLE 4. The sum of seventy thousand dol-lars shall be applied to the payment, by the UnitedStates, of certain claims against the Indians of whichamount twenty-eight thousand dollars shall, at theirrequest, be paid to William A. Aitkin, twenty-fivethousand to Lyman M. Warren, and the balance ap-plied to the liquidation of other just demands againstthem—which they acknowledge to be the case withregard to that presented by Hercules L. Dousman,for the sum of five thousand dollars; and they re-quest that it be paid.

ARTICLE 5. The privilege of hunting, fish-ing, and gathering the wild rice, upon the lands,the rivers and the lakes included in the territoryceded, is guaranteed to the Indians, during the plea-sure of the President of the United States.

ARTICLE 6. This treaty shall be obligatoryfrom and after its ratification by the President andSenate of the United States.

Done at St. Peters in the Territory of Wisconsinthe twenty-ninth day of July eighteen hundred andthirty-seven.

Henry Dodge, Commissioner

45

Articles of a treaty made and concluded at La Pointeof Lake Superior, in the Territory of Wisconsin, betweenRobert Stuart commissioner on the part of the UnitedStates, and the Chippewa Indians of the Mississippi, andLake Superior, by their chiefs and headmen.

ARTICLE 1. The Chippewa Indians of the Mis-sissippi and Lake Superior, cede to the United Statesall the country within the following boundaries; viz:beginning at the mouth of Chocolate river of LakeSuperior; thence northwardly across said lake to in-tersect the boundary line between the United Statesand the Province of Canada; thence up said LakeSuperior, to the mouth of the St. Louis, or Fond duLac river (including all the islands in said lake);thence up said river to the American Fur Company’strading post, at the southwardly bend thereof, about22 miles from its mouth; thence sough to intersectthe line of the treaty of 29th July 1837, with theChippewas of the Mississippi; thence along said lineto its southeastwardly extremity, near the Ploverportage on the Wisconsin river; thence northeast-wardly, along the boundary line, between theChippewas and Menomonees, to its eastern termi-nation, (established by the treaty held with theChippewas, Menomonees, and Winnebagos, at Buttedes Morts, August 11th 1827) on the Skonawby riverof Green Bay; thence northwardly to the source ofChocolate river; thence down said river to its mouth,the place of beginning; it being the intention of theparties to this treaty, to include in this cession, allthe Chippewa lands eastwardly of the aforesaid linerunning from the American Fur Company’s tradingpost on the Fond du Lac river to the intersection ofthe line of the treaty made with the Chippewas ofthe Mississippi July 29th 1837.

ARTICLE II. The Indians stipulate for theright of hunting on the ceded territory, with theother usual privileges of occupancy, until requiredto remove by the President of the United States,and that the laws of the United States shall be con-tinued in force, in respect to their trade and inter-course with the whites, until otherwise ordered byCongress.

ARTICLE III. It is agreed by the parties to thistreaty, that whenever the Indians shall be requiredto remove from the ceded district, all the uncededlands belonging to the Indians of Fond du Lac, SandyLake, and Mississippi bands, shall be the commonproperty and home of all the Indians, party to thistreaty.

ARTICLE IV. In consideration of the forego-ing cession, the United States, engage to pay to theChippewa Indians of the Mississippi, and Lake Su-perior, annually, for twenty-five years, twelve thou-sand five hundred (12,500) dollars, in specie, tenthousand five hundred (10,500) dollars in goods, two

thousand (2,000) dollars in provisions and tobacco,two thousand (2,000) dollars for the support of twoblacksmith shops, (including pay of smiths and as-sistants, and iron steel &c.) one thousand (1,000)dollars for pay of two farmers, twelve hundred(1,200) for pay of two carpenters, and two thousand(2,000) dollars for the support of schools for the In-dians party to this treaty; and further the UnitedStates engage to pay the sum of five thousand (5,000)dollars as an agricultural fund, to be expended un-der the direction of the Secretary of War. And alsothe sum of seventy-five thousand (75,000) dollars,shall be allowed for the full satisfaction of their debtswithin the ceded district, which shall be examinedby the commissioner to this treaty, and the amountto be allowed decided upon by him, which shall ap-pear in a schedule hereunto annexed. The UnitedStates shall pay the amount so allowed within threeyears.

Whereas the Indians have expressed a strongdesire to have some provision made for their halfbreed relatives, therefore it is agreed, that fifteenthousand (15,000) dollars shall be paid to said Indi-ans, next year, as a present, to be disposed of, as they,together with their agent, shall determine in council.

ARTICLE V. Whereas the whole country be-tween Lake Superior and the Mississippi, has alwaysbeen understood as belonging in common to theChippewas, party to this treaty; and whereas thebands bordering on Lake Superior, have not been al-lowed to participate in the annuity payments of thetreaty made with the Chippewas of the Mississippi,at St. Peters July 29th 1837, and whereas all theunceded lands belonging to the aforesaid Indians,are hereafter to be held in common, therefore, to re-move all occasion for jealousy and discontent, it isagreed that all the annuity due by the said treaty, asalso the annuity due by the present treaty, shallhenceforth be equally divided among the Chippewasof the Mississippi and Lake Superior; party to thistreaty, so that every person shall receive an equal share.

ARTICLE VI. The Indians residing on the Min-eral district, shall be subject to removal therefrom atthe pleasure of the President of the United States.

ARTICLE VII. This treaty shall be obligatoryupon the contracting parties when ratified by thePresident and Senate of the United States.

In testimony whereof the said Robert Stuartcommissioner, on the part of the United States, andthe chiefs and headmen of the Chippewa Indians ofthe Mississippi and Lake Superior, have hereuntoset their hands, at La Pointe of Lake Superior, Wis-consin Territory this fourth day of October in the yearof our Lord one thousand eight hundred and forty-two.

Robert Stuart, CommissionerJno. Hulbert, Secretary

Treaty with the ChippewaOctober 4, 1842

46

Articles of a treaty made and concluded at La Pointe,in the State of Wisconsin, between Henry C. Gilbert andDavid B. Herriman, commissioners on the part of theUnited States, and the Chippewa Indians of Lake Supe-rior and the Mississippi, by their chiefs and head-men.

ARTICLE 1. The Chippewas of Lake Superiorhereby cede to the United States all the lands here-tofore owned by them in common with the Chip-pewas of the Mississippi, lying east of the followingboundary line, to wit: Beginning at a point, wherethe east branch of Snake River crosses the southernboundary line of the Chippewa country, runningthence up the said branch to its source, thence nearlynorth, in a straight line, to the mouth of East Savan-nah River, thence up the St. Louis River to the mouthof East Swan River, thence up the East swan River toits source, thence in a straight line to the most west-erly bend of Vermillion River, and thence down theVermillion River to its mouth.

The Chippewas of the Mississippi hereby as-sent and agree to the foregoing cession and consentthat the whole amount of the consideration moneyfor the country ceded above, shall be paid to theChippewas of Lake Superior, and in considerationthereof the Chippewas of Lake Superior hereby re-linquish to the Chippewas of the Mississippi, all theirinterest in and claim to the lands heretofore ownedby them in common, lying west of the above bound-ary-line.

ARTICLE 2. [Designation of boundary lines]ARTICLE 3. The United States will define the

boundaries of the reserved tracts, whenever it maybe necessary, by actual survey, and the President may,from time to time, at his discretion, cause the wholeto be surveyed, and may assign to each head of afamily or single person over twenty-one years of age,eighty acres of land for his or their separate use: andhe may, at his discretion, as fast as the occupantsbecome capable of transacting their own affairs, is-sue patents therefor to such occupants, with such re-strictions of the power of alienation as he may see fitto impose. And he may also, at his discretion, makerules and regulations, respecting the disposition ofthe lands in case of the death of the head of a family,or single person occupying the same, or in case of itsabandonment by them. And he may also assign otherlands in exchange for mineral lands, if any such arefound in the tracts herein set apart. And he may alsomake such changes in the boundaries of such re-served tracts or otherwise, as shall be necessary toprevent interference with any vested rights. All nec-

essary roads, highways, and railroads, the lines ofwhich may run through any of the reserved tracts,shall have the right of way through the same, com-pensation being made therefor as in other cases.

ARTICLE 4. In consideration of and paymentfor the country hereby ceded, the United States agreeto pay to the Chippewas of Lake Superior, annually,for the term of twenty years, the following sums, towit: five thousand dollars in coin; eight thousanddollars in goods, household furniture and cookingutensils; three thousand dollars in agricultural imple-ments and cattle, carpenter’s and other tools andbuilding materials, and three thousand dollars formoral and educational purposes, of which last sum,three hundred dollars per annum shall be paid tothe Grand Portage band, to enable them to maintaina school at their village. The United States will alsopay the further sum of ninety thousand dollars, asthe chiefs in open council may direct, to enable themto meet their present just engagements. Also the fur-ther sum of six thousand dollars, in agriculturalimplements, household furniture, and cooking uten-sils, to be distributed at the next annuity payment,among the mixed bloods of said nation. The UnitedStates will also furnish two hundred guns, one hun-dred rifles, five hundred beaver traps, three hundreddollars’ worth of ammunition, and one thousanddollars’ worth of ready made clothing, to be distrib-uted among the young men of the nation, at the nextannuity payment.

ARTICLE 5. The United States will also furnisha blacksmith and assistant, with the usual amountof stock, during the continuance of the annuity pay-ments, and as much longer as the President maythink proper, at each of the points herein set apartfor the residence of the Indians, the same to be inlieu of all the employees to which the Chippewas ofLake Superior may be entitled under previous exist-ing treaties.

ARTICLE 6. The annuities of the Indians shallnot be taken to pay the debts of individuals, but sat-isfaction for depredations committed by them shallbe made by them in such manner as the Presidentmay direct.

ARTICLE 7. No spirituous liquors shall bemade, sold, or used on any of the lands herein setapart for the residence of the Indians, and the sale ofthe same shall be prohibited in the Territory herebyceded, until otherwise ordered by the President.

ARTICLE 8. It is agreed, between the Chip-pewas of Lake Superior and the Chippewas of the

Treaty with the ChippewaSeptember 30, 1854

47

Mississippi, that the former shall be entitled to two-thirds, and the latter to one-tfhird, of all benefits tobe derived from former treaties existing prior to theyear 1847.

ARTICLE 9. The United States agrees that anexamination shall be made, and all sums that maybe found equitably due to the Indians, for arrearagesof annuity or other thing, under the provisions offormer treaties, shall be paid as the chiefs may di-rect.

ARTICLE 10. All missionaries, and teachers,and other persons of full age, residing in the terri-tory hereby ceded, or upon any of the reservationshereby made by authority of law, shall be allowed toenter the land occupied by them at the minimumprice whenever the surveys shall be completed tothe amount of one quarter section each.

ARTICLE 11. All annuity payments to theChippewas of Lake Superior, shall hereafter be madeat L’Anse, La Pointe, Grand Portage, and on the St.Louis River; and the Indians shall not be required toremove from the homes hereby set apart for them.And such of them as reside in the territory herebyceded, shall have the right to hunt and fish therein,until otherwise ordered by the President.

ARTICLE 12. In consideration of the povertyof the Bois Forte Indians who are parties to this treaty,they having never received any annuity payments,and of the great extent of that part of the ceded coun-try owned exclusively by them, the following addi-tional stipulations are made for their benefit. TheUnited States will pay the sum of ten thousand dol-lars, as their chiefs in open council may direct, toenable them to meet their present just engagements.Also the further sum of ten thousand dollars, in five

equal annual payments, in blankets, cloth, nets, guns,ammunition, and such other articles of necessity asthey may require.

They shall have the right to select their reser-vation at any time hereafter, under the direction ofthe President; and the same may be equal in extent,in proportion to their numbers, to those allowed theother bands, and be subject to the same provisions.

They shall be allowed a blacksmith, and theusual smithshop supplies and also two persons toinstruct them in farming, whenever in the opinionof the President it shall be proper, and for such lengthof time as he shall direct.

It is understood that all Indians who are par-ties to this treaty, except the Chippewas of the Mis-sissippi, shall hereafter be known as the Chippewasof Lake Superior. Provided, That the stipulation bywhich the Chippewas of Lake Superior relinquish-ing their right to land west of the boundary line shallnot apply to the Bois Forte band who are parties tothis treaty.

ARTICLE 13. This treaty shall be obligatory onthe contracting parties, as soon as the same shall beratified by the President and Senate of the UnitedStates.

In testimony whereof, the said Henry C. Gil-bert, and the said David B. Herriman, commission-ers as aforesaid, and the undersigned chiefs andheadmen of the Chippewas of Lake Superior and theMississippi, have hereunto set their hands and seals,at the place aforesaid, this thirtieth day of Septem-ber, one thousand eight hundred and fifty-four.

Henry C. Gilbert,David B. Herriman,

Commissioners

48

Articles of agreement and convention made and con-cluded at the city of Washington, this twenty-second dayof February, one thousand eight hundred and fifty-five,by George W. Manypenny, commissioner, on the part ofthe United States, and the following-named chiefs anddelegates, representing the Mississippi bands of ChippewaIndians, viz: Pug-o-na-ke-shick, or Hole-in-the-day; Que-we-sans-ish, or Bad boy; Wand-e-kaw, or Little Hill; I-awe-showe-we-ke-shig, or Crossing Sky; Petud-dunce, orRat’s Liver; Mun-o-min-e-kay-shein, or Rice-Maker; Mah-yah-ge-way-we-durg, or the Chorister; Kay-gwa-daush,or the Attempter; Caw-caug-e-we-goon, or Crow Feather;and Show-baush-king, or He that passes under Everything,and the following-named chiefs and delegates represent-ing the Pillager and Lake Winnibigoshish bands ofChippewa Indians, viz: Aish-ke-bug-e-koshe, or FlatMouth; Be-sheck-kee, or Buffalo; Nay-bun-a-caush, orYoung Man’s Son; Maug-e-gaw-bow, or Stepping Ahead;Mi-gi-si, or Eagle, and Kaw-be-mub-bee, or North Star,they being thereto duly authorized by the said bands ofIndians respectively.

ARTICLE 1. The Mississippi, Pillager, and LakeWinnibigoshish bands of Chippewa Indians herebycede, sell, and convey to the United States all theirright, title, and interest in, and to, the lands nowowned and claimed by them, in the Territory of Min-nesota, and included within the following bound-aries. [Designation of boundary lines]

And the said Indians do further fully and en-tirely relinquish and convey to the United States, anyand all right, title, and interest, of whatsoever na-ture the same may be, which they may now have in,and to any other lands in the Territory of Minnesotaor elsewhere.

ARTICLE 2. There shall be, and hereby is, re-served and set apart a sufficient quantity of land forthe permanent homes of the said Indians; the landsso reserved and set apart, to be in separate tracts.

For the Mississippi bands of Chippewa Indi-ans: The first to embrace the following fractionaltownships, viz: forty-two north, of range twenty-fivewest; forty-two north, of range twenty-six west; andforty-two and forty-three north, of range twenty-seven west; and, also, the three islands in the south-ern part of Mille Lac. Second, beginning at a pointhalf a mile east of Rabbit Lake; thence south threemiles; thence westwardly, in a straight line, to a pointthree miles south of the mouth of Rabbit River; thencenorth to the mouth of said river; thence up the Mis-sissippi River to a point directly north of the place ofbeginning; thence south to the place of beginning.

Third, beginning at a point half a mile southwestfrom the most southwestwardly point of Gull Lake;thence due south to Crow Wing River; thence downsaid river, to the Mississippi River; thence up saidriver to Long Lake Portage; thence, in a straight line,to the head of Gull Lake; thence in a southwestardlydirection, as nearly in a direct line as practicable, butat no point thereof, at a less distance than half a milefrom said lake, to the place of beginning. Fourth, theboundaries to be, as nearly as practicable, at rightangles, and so as to embrace within them PokagomonLake; but nowhere to approach nearer said lake thanhalf a mile therefrom. Fifth, beginning at the mouthof Sandy Lake River; thence south, to a point on aeast and west line, two miles south of the most south-ern point of Sandy Lake; thence east, to a point duesouth from the mouth of West Savannah River;thence north, to the mouth of said river; thence northto a point on an east and west line, one mile north ofthe most northern point of Sandy Lake; thence west,to Little Rice River; thence down said river to SandyLake River; and thence down said river to the placeof beginning. Sixth, to include all the islands in RiceLake, and also half a section of land on said lake, toinclude the present gardens of the Indians. Seventh,one section of land for Pug-o-na-ke-shick, or Hole-in-the-day, to include his house and farm; and forwhich he shall receive a patent in fee simple.

For the Pillager and Lake Winnibigoshishbands. [Designation of boundary lines]

And at such time or times as the President maydeem it advisable for the interests and welfare of saidIndians, or any of them, he shall cause the said res-ervation, or such portion or portions thereof as maybe necessary, to be surveyed; and assign to each headof a family, or single person over twenty-one yearsof age, a reasonable quantity of land, in one body,not to exceed eighty acres in any case, for his or theirseparate use; and he may, at his discretion, as theoccupants thereof become capable of managing theirbusiness and affairs, issue patents to them for thetracts so assigned to them, respectively; said tractsto be exempt from taxation, levy, sale, or forfeiture;and not to be aliened or leased for a longer periodthan two years, at one time, until otherwise providedby the legislature of the State in which they may besituate, with the assent of Congress. They shall notbe sold, or alienated, in fee, for a period of five yearsafter the date of the patents; and not then withoutthe assent of the President of the United States be-ing first obtained. Prior to the issue of the patent, the

Treaty with the ChippewaFebruary 22, 1855

49

50

President shall make such rules and regulations ashe may deem necessary and expedient, respectingthe disposition of any of said tracts in case of thedeath of the person or persons to whom they maybe assigned, so that the same shall be secured to thefamilies of such deceased person; and should any ofthe Indians to whom tracts may be assigned there-after abandon them, the President may make suchrules and regulations, in relation to such abandonedtracts, as in his judgment may be necessary andproper.

ARTICLE 3. In consideration of, and in fullcompensation for, the cessions made by the said Mis-sissippi, Pillager, and Lake Winnibigoshish bands ofChippewa Indians, in the first article of this agree-ment, the United States hereby agree and stipulateto pay, expend, and make provisions for, the saidbands of Indians, as follows, viz:

For the Mississippi bands: Ten thousand dol-lars ($10,000) in goods, and other useful articles, assoon as practicable after the ratification of this in-strument, and after the appropriation shall be madeby Congress therefor, to be turned over to the del-egates and chiefs for distribution among their people.

Fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) to enable themto adjust and settle their present engagements, so faras the same, on an examination thereof, may befound and decided to be valid and just by the chiefs,subject to the approval of the Secretary of the Inte-rior; and any balance remaining of said sum not re-quired for the above-mentioned purpose shall bepaid over to said Indians in the same manner as theirannuity money, and in such installments as the saidSecretary may determine; Provided, That an amountnot exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000) of theabove sum shall be paid to such full and mixedbloods as the chiefs may direct, for services renderedheretofore to their bands.

Twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) per annum,in money, for twenty years, provided, that two thou-sand dollars ($2,000) per annum of that sum, shallbe paid or expended, as the chiefs may request, forpurposes of utility connected with the improvementand welfare of said Indians, subject to the approvalof the secretary of the Interior.

Five thousand dollars ($5,000) for the construc-tion of a road from the mouth of Rum River to MilleLac, to be expended under the direction of the Com-missioner of Indian Affairs.

A reasonable quantity of land, to be determinedby the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, to beploughed and prepared for cultivation in suitablefields, at each of the reservations of the said bands,not exceeding, in the aggregate, three hundred acresfor all the reservations, the Indians to make the railsand inclose the fields themselves.

For the Pillager and Lake Winnibigoshishbands: Ten thousand dollars ($10,000) in goods, andother useful articles, as soon as practicable, after the

ratification of this agreement, and an appropriationshall be made by congress therefor; to be turned overto the chiefs and delegates for distributions amongtheir people.

Forty thousand dollars ($40,000) to enablethem to adjust and settle their present engagements,so far as the same, on an examination thereof, maybe found and decide to be valid and just by the chiefs,subject to the approval of the Secretary of the Inte-rior; and any balance remaining of said sum, not re-quired for that purpose, shall be paid over to saidIndians, in the same manner as their annuity money,and in such installments as the said Secretary maydetermine; provided that an amount, not exceedingten thousand dollars ($10,000) of the above sum, shallbe paid to such mixed-bloods as the chiefs may di-rect, for services heretofore rendered to their bands.

Ten thousand six hundred and sixty-six dollarsand sixty-six cents ($10,666.66) per annum, in money,for thirty years.

Eight thousand dollars ($8,000) per annum, forthirty years, in such goods as may be requested bythe chiefs, and as may be suitable for the Indians,according to their condition and circumstances.

Four thousand dollars ($4,000) per annum, forthirty years, to be paid or expended, as the chief mayrequest, for purposes of utility connected with theimprovement and welfare of said Indians; subject tothe approval of the Secretary of the Interior: Pro-vided, That an amount not exceeding two thousanddollars thereof, shall, for a limited number of years,be expended under the direction of the Commis-sioner of Indian affairs, for provisions, seeds, andsuch other articles or things as may be useful in agri-cultural pursuits.

Such sum as can be usefully and beneficiallyapplied by the United States, annually, for twentyyears, and not to exceed three thousand dollars, inany one year, for purposes of education; to be ex-pended under the direction of the Secretary of theInterior.

Three hundred dollars’ ($300) worth of pow-der, per annum, for five years.

One hundred dollars’ ($100) worth shot andlead, per annum, for five years.

One hundred dollars’ ($100 worth of gillingtwine, per annum, for five years.

One hundred dollars’ ($100) worth of tobacco,per annum, for five years.

Hire of three laborers at Leech Lake, of two atLake Winnibigoshish, and of one at Cass Lake, forfive years.

Expense of two blacksmiths, with the necessaryshop, iron, steel, and tools, for fifteen years.

Two hundred dollars ($200) in grubbing-hoesand tools, the present year.

Fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000) for openinga road from Crow Wing to Leech Lake; to be ex-pended under the direction of the Commissioner of

50

51

Indian Affairs. To have ploughed and prepared forcultivation, two hundred acres of land, in ten or morelots, within the reservation at Leech Lake; fifty acres,in four or more lots, within the reservation at LakeWinni-bigoshish; and twenty-five acres, in two ormore lots within the reservation at Cass Lake: Pro-vided, That the Indians shall make the rails and in-close the lots themselves.A saw-mill, with a portablegrist-mill attached thereto, to be established when-ever the same shall be deemed necessary and advis-able by the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, at suchpoint as he shall think best; and which, together, withthe expense of a proper person to take charge of andoperate them, shall be continued during ten years:Provided, That the cost of all the requisite repairs ofthe said mills shall be paid by the Indians, out oftheir own funds.

ARTICLE 4. The Mississippi bands have ex-pressed a desire to be permitted to employ their ownfarmers, mechanics, and teachers; and it is thereforeagreed that the amounts to which they are now en-titled, under former treaties, for purposes of educa-tion, for blacksmiths and assistants, shops, tools, ironand steel, and for the employment of farmers andcarpenters, shall be paid over to them as their annu-ities are paid: Provided, however, That whenever,in the opinion of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs,they fail to make proper provision for the above-named purposes, he may retain said amounts, andappropriate them according to his discretion, for theireducation and improvement.

ARTICLE 5. The foregoing annuities, in moneyand goods, shall be paid and distributed as follows:Those due the Mississippi bands, at one of their res-ervations; and those due the Pillager and LakeWinnibigoshish bands, at Leech Lake; and no partof the said annuities shall ever be taken or applied,in any manner, to or for the payment of the debts orobligations of Indians contracted in their privatedealings, as individuals, whether to traders or otherpersons. And should any of said Indians become in-temperate or abandoned, and waste their property,the President may withhold any moneys or goods,due and payable to such, and cause the same to beexpended, applied, or distributed, so as to insure thebenefit thereof to their families. If, at any time, be-fore the said annuities in money and goods of eitherof the Indian parties to this convention shall expire,the interests and welfare of said Indians shall, in theopinion of the President, require a different arrange-ment, he shall have the power to cause the said an-nuities, instead of being paid over and distributedto the Indians, to be expended or applied to suchpurposes or objects as may be best calculated to pro-mote their improvement and civilization.

ARTICLE 6. The missionaries and such otherpersons as are now, by authority of law, residing inthe country ceded by the first article of this agree-

ment, shall each have the privilege of entering onehundred and sixty acres of the said ceded lands, atone dollar and twenty-five cents per acre; said en-tries not to be made so as to interfere, in any manner,with the laying off of the several reservations hereinprovided for.

And such of the mixed bloods as are heads offamilies, and now have actual residences and im-provements in the ceded country, shall have grantedto them, in fee, eighty acres of land, to include theirrespective improvements.

ARTICLE 7. The laws which have been or maybe enacted by Congress, regulating trade and inter-course with the Indian tribes, to continue and be inforce within the several reservations provided forherein; and those portions of said laws which pro-hibit the introduction, manufacture, use of, and traf-fic in, ardent spirits, wines, or other liquors, in theIndian country, shall continue and be in force, withinthe entire boundaries of the country herein ceded tothe United States, until otherwise provided by Con-gress.

ARTICLE 8. All roads and highways, autho-rized by law, the lines of which shall be laid throughany of the reservations provided for in this conven-tion, shall have the right of way through the same;the fair an just value of such right being paid to theIndians therefor; to be assessed and determined ac-cording to the laws in force for the appropriation oflands for such purposes.

ARTICLE 9. The said bands of Indians, jointlyand severally, obligate and bind themselves not tocommit any depredations or wrong upon other In-dians, or upon citizens of the United States; to con-duct themselves at all times in a peaceable and or-derly manner; to submit all difficulties between themand other Indians to the President, and to abide byhis decision in regard to the same, and to respect andobserve the laws of the United States, so far as thesame are to them applicable. And they also stipulatethat they will settle down in the peaceful pursuits oflife, commence the cultivation of the soil, and ap-propriate their means to the erection of houses, open-ing farms, the education of their children, and suchother objects of improvement and convenience, asare incident to well-regulated society; and that theywill abstain from the use of intoxicating drinks an-other vices to which they have been addicted.

ARTICLE 10. This instrument shall be obliga-tory on the contracting parties as soon as the sameshall be ratified by the President and the Senate ofthe United States.

In testimony whereof the said George W.Manypenny, Commissioner as aforesaid, and the saidchiefs and delegates of the Mississippi, Pillager andLake Winnibigoshish bands of Chippewa Indianshave hereunto set their hands and seals, at the placeon the day and year hereinbefore written.

George W. Manypenny, Commissioner

51

52

Resource materialsGLIFWC recently completed a web site on the World Wide Web which provides access to

many of its publications. Visit our web site at www.glifwc.org. Further development of theGLIFWC web site will eventually lead to most information being available through the web.GLIFWC’s PIO can be reached by phone at (715) 682-6619; by fax at (715) 682-9294; through e-mailat pio@glifwc.org; or by mail at P.O. Box 9, Odanah, Wisconsin 54861. The following materials arepublished and/or distributed by PIO. Please contact PIO for pricing information.

MAZINA’IGAN. A quarterly newspaper emphasizing treaty issues and treaty resource managementactivities.

Seasons of the Ojibwe. Details GLIFWC activities and harvest totals for all major off-reservation tribal,hunting, fishing, and gathering seasons.

Chippewa Treaties: Understanding & Impact. This publication is aimed at 4th-8th grade studentspromoting cultural awareness and background information on Chippewa treaties.

Sulfide Mining: The Process & The Price. This publication is intended to enhance the reader’s under-standing of the threats posed by sulfide mining and to raise issues that should be considered beforedecisions concerning mine permitting are made.

BIZHIBAYASH: Circle of Flight. This publication features 21 tribal and intertribal wetland andwaterfowl enhancement success stories.

Cultural Posters. GLIFWC produces a new poster annually.

Growing Up Ojibwe. This 20-page supplement to the MAZINA’IGAN is written for elementarystudents and contains activities.

Brochures. Ojibwe Treaty Rights & Resource Management; Wild Rice Ecology-Harvest-Management;Enforcement of Off-Reservation Treaty Seasons, Sandy Lake Tragedy & Memorial and Lake SuperiorIndian Fishery.

Where the River is Wide: Pahquahwong and the Chippewa Flowage. This book provides a look athistorical events as they occurred in the Chippewa Flowage. Some events have been overlooked orforgotten as the region enjoys the benefits of the Chippewa Flowage as it is today.

Plants Used by the Great Lakes Ojibwa. This book includes a brief description of the plant and its use,reproduced line drawings, and a map showing approximately where each plant is distributed within theceded territories.

Non-Medicinal Plants Used by the Great Lakes Ojibwe. This CD is the result of meetings with eldersfrom GLIFWC’s 11 member bands and identifies non-medicinal uses of plants gathered, such as wildbergamot used as a hair rinse and conditioner, elderberry juice used as lipstick when mixed with tallow,or cattail used as a food. The CD includes the complete 585 page database and includes summaries thatidentify specific uses of plants.

Other resource materials may be available through:CORA—Chippewa Ottawa Resource Authority. The Authority ensures the conservation and

enhancement of the Great Lakes fishery resource, public education on fishing rights, and enforcement ofthe 1985 Consensus Agreement. CORA can be reached at 179 W. Three Mile Road, Sault Ste. Marie,Michigan 49783, by phone at (906) 632-0043 or by fax (906) 632-4411.

1854 Authority—The 1854 Authority is an inter-tribal agency governed by the Reservation TribalCouncils of the Bois Forte and Grand Portage Bands of Lake Superior Chippewa. The Authority regulatesand maintains the exercise of off-reservation treaty rights in the territory ceded to the United Statesgovernment under the Treaty of 1854. The ceded territory encompasses approximately five million acresin northeastern Minnesota. The 1854 Authority can be reached at Airpark Square, 4428 Haines Road,Duluth, Minnesota 55811-1524, by phone at (218) 722-8907 or by fax (218) 722-7003.

APPENDIX IV52

MichiganKeweenaw Bay Indian Comm.107 Bear Town RoadBaraga, MI 49908(906) 353-6623

MinnesotaMille Lacs BandHCR 67, Box 194Onamia, MN 56359(320) 532-4181

Wisconsin2700 LCO Tribal Government13394 W. Trepania RoadHayward, WI 54843(715) 634-8934

Red Cliff BandP.O. Box 529Bayfield, WI 54814(715) 779-3700

GLIFWC Member Tribes

Bay Mills Indian CommunityRoute 1, Box 313Brimley, MI 49715(906) 248-3241

Fond du Lac Band1720 Big Lake RoadCloquet, MN 55720(218) 879-4593

Bad River BandP.O. Box 39Odanah, WI 54861(715) 682-7111

Sokaogon Chippewa Community

Crandon, WI 54520(715) 478-2604

Lac Vieux Desert BandP.O. Box 249Watersmeet, MI 49969(906) 358-4722

Lac du Flambeau BandP.O. Box 67Lac du Flambeau, WI 54538(715) 588-3303

St. Croix Chippewa BandP.O. Box 287Hertel, WI 54845(715) 349-2195

3086 State Highway 55