Inland Hunting and Fishing

Tribes and the Michigan Wolf Hunt

bryannewland1 Comment

The Michigan Natural Resources Commission has approved a wolf hunting season here in Michigan, just one day after Governor Snyder signed legislation authorizing the Commission to determine whether to allow such hunting.

In recent years, Anishnaabe tribes (Ojibwe, Potawatomi, and Odawa) in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota have opposed state-sanctioned wolf-hunting.  Wolves are important in the religious teachings of Anishnaabe people, and it is often said that the Ma’iingun (wolf) and the Anishnaabe are brothers whose fates are linked.

Senator Casperson of Escanaba,  the primary sponsor of the legislation, dismissed tribal religious concerns during the process, stating:

“I don’t know how you negotiate that, because that’s a personal belief they have. But at the end of the day, I do think many people don’t hold that same belief, so what do we do. Do we hold fast to it because the tribes say it’s sensitive to them, when many of my citizens don’t hold that same value?”

Aside from the Senator’s ironic statement, some Michigan tribes have also based their objections on the legal relationship between the tribes, the state, and the United States.  The 1836 Treaty of Washington reserved the hunting, fishing, and gathering rights of what are now five of Michigan’s Ojibwe and Odawa tribes throughout much of the State of Michigan.  In 2007, those five tribes and the State entered into a court-approved agreement to clarify tribal rights on lands ceded under that treaty.

Section 22 of the 2007 Agreement addresses tribal “activities designed to restore, reclaim, or enhance fish, wildlife or other natural resources within the inland portion of the 1836 Ceded Territory through stocking, rearing, habitat improvement, or other methods.”

Section 23 of the 2007 Agreement addresses consultation between the tribes and the State.  In particular, Section 23.4 provides:

“23.4 The State and the Tribes shall notify each other at least annually of proposed regulatory changes (including changes in management units or methodologies for determining the allowable harvest of any species) before they take effect (except where, due to an emergency or other matter beyond the control of the Parties it is not possible to provide advance notice) and seek to resolve any concerns arising from such changes before implementing them. Upon request, the State and the Tribes shall share information regarding the rationale for such changes and their anticipated effects (e.g., changes in species abundance, distribution, or age or sex ratios). Upon request, the State and the Tribes shall provide similar information for any existing regulation, management unit or allowable-harvest methodology. The information provided shall be sufficiently detailed to enable the other Parties to fully understand the regulation, management unit or allowable-harvest methodology at issue and any underlying data associated with it, and to enable them to make constructive suggestions for improvements to such regulation, management unit or harvestable surplus methodology.”

I am citing these provisions to highlight one basis of tribal opposition to the State’s proposed authorized wolf hunt.  I am not privy to information regarding the level of consultation between the tribes and the State, and whether the State has satisfied its obligations under the 2007 Agreement.  That issue may well be decided in the near future.

I can say that merely including tribes in a general public comment process does not fulfill tribal consultation requirements at either the state or the federal level.  That is not the legally appropriate forum in which to address tribal treaty rights.  If that is the extent to what occurred with the wolf hunt, I’m not sure that all of the tribes that were parties to the 2007 Agreement would believe that the State has fulfilled its obligations.

Lastly, the rights reserved in the 1836 Treaty necessarily include the right to protect habitats and ecosystems that would support hunting, fishing, and gathering.

It is well-documented that wolves are considered a “keystone” species in their natural habitat (which includes most of northern Michigan).  This means that their existence and well-being affects the health and well-being of many other species of plants and animals in their ecosystem.

To the extent that Michigan’s state-sanctioned wolf-hunt impacts tribal rights to hunt, fish, and gather other species, then those tribes may have a valid basis for challenging the size and scope of the hunt.

*Any views expressed in this post are solely those of the author, and not representative of any tribes or other organizations. 

First Stewards Climate Change Symposium

Nick Reo

Coastal First Peoples are currently gathered in Washington DC to discuss climate change impacts and response strategies. Symposium details, including live streaming video of presentations, can be found here.

Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians rejects proposed Michigan moose hunt

Nick Reo

As reported in the September 2nd issue of Win Awenen Nisitotung, Sault Tribe Inland Conservation Committee elected not to support a moose hunting season in Michigan. Provisions in the 2007 Inland Consent Decree require tribal (and state) approval of moose hunting. This outcome may frustrate people interested in moving forward with a moose hunt in Michigan; but for Sault Tribe officials, the precautionary route was prudent given the small number of moose that currently reside in the Upper Peninsula and the uncertainty over their population dynamics.

State Bar of Wisconsin Mining Law Symposium, Thursday, August 25, 2011

Andrew Adams III1 Comment

The State Bar of Wisconsin will host a Mining Law Symposium CLE on Thursday, August 25, 2011 which in many ways is in response to the proposed mine to be situated in the Penokee-Gogebic Iron Range in northwest Wisconsin, very near the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Tribe Reservation, by Gogebic Taconite.

Here is information on the CLE:

http://www.wisbar.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=View_calendar1&template=/Conference/ConferenceDescription.cfm&ConferenceID=5382

Here is a Milwaukee Sentinel Journal article discussing Bad River Chairman Mike Wiggins’ concerns with the proposed mine:

http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/119739399.html

Here is recent article describing the mine from Northwoods Wilderness Recovery:

http://www.northwoodswild.org/component/content/article/57-sulfide-and-uranium-mining-news/93-proposed-mining-in-northern-wisconsins-penokee-range

“Unusual Fishing Activities”

Kate Fort

By Christina Rohn News-Review Staff Writer

Thursday, April 2, 2009 8:38 AM EDT

The Department of Natural Resources wants to remind Michigan residents that this spring, they may observe unusual fishing activities by tribal members. As part of the 1836 Treaty of Washington — established by the federal government, the state of Michigan and five Michigan tribes — fishing opportunities, as well as hunting and gathering activities, for tribal members are different than those allowed for state-licensed recreational anglers under Michigan law. As established by the 2007 Inland Consent Decree, tribal members from the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, Bay Mills Indian Community, Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, Little River Band of Ottawa Indians and Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, are allowed to use spears or conventional tackle to take walleye and steelhead in state waters covered by the 1836 Treaty of Washington which are, at the time, closed to state-licensed anglers. “We haven’t been receiving any complaints, we’re just trying to be proactive to let anglers know … they might see it happening,” said Mary Dettloff, press spokesperson for the Michigan Department of Natural Resources. “If you see spearing of walleye and steelhead, do not be alarmed and think it’s illegal … it’s a fairly new thing.” The area tribal members can use under the 1836 Treaty of Washington includes the eastern half of the Upper Peninsula and a majority of northern lower Michigan, which accounts for 13,837,207 acres of land and inland waters.

Under the 2007 Inland Consent Decree, tribal members will have seasons, as well as bag limits that differ slightly from state regulations.

Tribal fishing and hunting will be for personal subsistence use only, so according to the federal and state government, it should have limited effect on the state’s natural resources.

For more information about the 1836 Treaty of Washington, or the 2007 Inland Consent Decree, visit www.michigan.gov/dnr.

To report a suspected violation of state law, call the Department of Natural Resources’ Report All Poaching line (800) 292-7800.

Spring Fishing Season Brings Consent Decree Attention

Nick Reo

As folks start dusting off thier spring fishing gear, the 2007 Consent Decree is getting some press again. It is good to keep balanced information in front of Michigan citizens as we come upon walleye spawning and subsequent inland spearing. These activities will present a culture shock for some citizens, so some balanced coverage by local media outlets will be useful.

By the way, the Michigan DNR is hiring 2 fisheries biologists to work on their tribal coordination unit and whose duties will relate directly to implementing the 2007 Consent Decree. The postings close on 4/22/08.

Cross-Deputization Concerns in Manistee

Nick Reo

Glenn Zaring, Communications Director of the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians, recently wrote an article for the Ludington Daily News regarding the reluctance of Manistee County to cross-deputize and work cooperatively with LRB law enforcement. He poses some important questions in the article that highlight some of the divisive issues in the region

http://www.ludingtondailynews.com/news.php?story_id=39440#comments

EXCERPT: 

For years now, the controversy over cross-deputization of tribal police officers in Michigan has been swirling here in Manistee County. Not in other areas, just here! The 11 other tribes in Michigan have good relations with their local law enforcement authorities and are cross-deputized. They are also integral components of the law enforcement picture protecting and serving all of their counties’ residents. County prosecutors and sheriffs welcome the assistance of tribal law enforcement officers in maintaining law and order and defraying the costs that would otherwise be borne exclusively by county taxpayers.

Why is Manistee County so far out of the mainstream? Why has Manistee County ignored the wishes of the U.S. Attorney General’s office to cross-deputize the officers of the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians? Why does the county believe the accepted and successful practice across the state of cross-deputizing tribal officers cannot work here? Why do the Manistee County Commissioners and sheriff want to ignore the opportunity to expand the abilities of law enforcement to serve all of the county residents — at no cost to the county?

Inland Agreement Photos

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

 From Indian Country Today:

  Click to Enlarge  
   
     

Photos by Theresa Keshick — Pictured are the signatories of the commemorative signing of the 2007 Inland Consent Decree between five tribes – Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, Little River Band of Ottawa Indians, Bay Mills Indian Community, Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians and the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians – and the Michigan Department of Natural Resources and the U.S. government Oct. 25. More than 100 people were present to witness the signing. (Below) Some of the signatories included Alice King Yellowbank, member of the Little Traverse Bay Bands Tribal Council; Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians Chairman Frank Ettawageshik; and Albert Colby Jr., tribal administrator of the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians.

Indian Country Faces and Places welcomes your submissions. Send your high resolution photographs and a short description to photo@indiancounty.com and place ”Faces and Places” in the subject line.

Inland Settlement Letters to the Editor (Detroit News)

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

From Indianz:

Readers of The Detroit News support a treaty rights settlement between the state of Michigan and five tribes.

Alex Hess: “In my opinion it is important that we honor the Native Americans because this originally is their land..”

Isaac C. Griffin: “The land is a Native American reservation and it should remain that way.”

Garrison Warr: “Even though 171 years have passed, it does not mean that these sports fishermen and the charter boat operators have the right to break the treaty that was made with the Indians, and do what they please with property which does not belong to them.”

Mike Stankiewicz: “Instead of bossing around the Native Americans even more, I feel we should respect the fact that their ancestors lived on this ground for many years before the white man came along.”

Get the Story:
Indians deserve support in fishing dispute (The Detroit News 11/20)

Michigan Legislative Alert

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

From Great Lakes, Great Michigan:

STATE SENATE ‘PROTECTION’ PLAN WOULD DRAIN MICHIGAN’S RIVERS

---

A proposed Great Lakes protection package being considered in the State Senate would allow large water users to drain huge percentages of some of Michigan’s finest rivers and streams, according to an analysis by the Great Lakes, Great Michigan coalition.

“The Senate bills would rely heavily on a newly developed water withdrawal assessment tool, discounting input from local communities and other sources, including experts in the field,” said James Clift of the Michigan Environmental Council. Clift was part of an advisory council that worked for 18 months to develop the assessment tool. Meanwhile, a contrasting package of Great Lakes protection bills in the State House provides multiple safeguards for Michigan’s waters that reach beyond the assessment tool to apply reasonable use determinations and review of resource harm. Both packages include approval of the Great Lakes Compact, an eight-state agreement banning major diversions from the lakes.

The Au Sable River, one of America’s best trout streams, could see allowable reductions in stream flow of 22 percent in some stretches under the assessment tool. “That’s outrageous,” said Rusty Gates, owner of Gates Au Sable Lodge near Grayling and president of Anglers of the Au Sable. “There’s no way you can take that much water out of a stream and not destroy it. I’m sure there are plenty of people and corporations who’d like to get their hands on the Au Sable’s spring-fed water, but the State Legislature shouldn’t be helping them do it.”

Stretches of other streams could see flow reductions in excess of 40 percent. “The Senate version of this legislation appears to recognize the value of thriving fish species in our coldwater streams, but relies heavily on the predictions of a newly created and imperfect modeling tool which, for example, would allow approximately a quarter to a third of the summer low flow of a trout stream to be withdrawn,” said Dr. Bryan Burroughs, executive director of the Michigan Council of Trout Unlimited. “Certainly this falls short of the intended spirit of the legislation, which is supposed to assure that future water withdrawals do not have an adverse impact on our natural resources. We expect that these shortfalls will be addressed if the bills are to receive widespread support.”

The Senate Legislation, relying on the assessment tool, would allow stream flow reductions of the following percentage in certain stretches of these rivers and streams:

  • 42 percent, Betsie River
  • 22 percent, Pere Marquette River
  • 25 percent, Sturgeon River
  • 22 and 16 percent, Au Sable River
  • 22 percent, Manistee River
  • 25 percent, Boardman River
  • 16 percent, Pigeon River
  • 25 percent, Jordan River

“The numbers prove that the assessment tool should be used exactly for what it was intended – as a tool, not the sole means of determining whether water users can responsibly pump huge quantities of water from the ground,” said Clift. “Balanced legislation, like that proposed under the House plan, puts multiple safeguards in place for Michigan’s water.”

For more information, visit the Great Lakes, Great Michigan website at www.greatlakesgreatmichigan.org