Inland Hunting and Fishing

Soo Tribe Board Officially Approves Inland Settlement

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

From the Soo Evening News: “The final piece of the puzzle appears to be in place as all five tribes have officially agreed to the 2007 Inland Hunting and Fishing Decree paving the way for an upcoming date in federal court.

“The Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians Board of Directors put the official stamp of approval on the deal Sunday during a special meeting. Reports indicate that two board members – Robert LaPointe and Shirley Petoskey – voted against the measure. Denise Chase was reportedly absent for the session and did not weigh in, while the rest of the board members approved the agreement.

“The tribe’s membership had overwhelmingly approved the agreement last week 3,476-678 in a special referendum.

“The other four tribes affected by the Treaty of 1836 had already approved the agreement with the State of Michigan defining inland hunting and fishing rights in perpetuity.”

More Inland Coverage: The Settlement from the POV of U.P. Whitetails Assn

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

From the Escanaba Daily Press: “The conservation work performed by organizations such as the Bay De Noc Sports Fishermen and the MDNR was recognized as an integral component of the successful management of our inland fisheries. Is [the settlement] perfect? Not totally. However it is a far cry better than what was in place before because now everyone is thinking towards the future.”

The longer article appears to be an interesting CYA from the treaty rights opponents.

One nit to the author — the settlement doesn’t “change[]” the treaty, just interpret it.

More Coverage of Soo Tribe Vote on Inland

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

From the AP: “The Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians said Thursday that its members have approved an agreement between five American Indian tribes and the state of Michigan over inland hunting and fishing rights.”

Daily Press article “Agreement Long Time Coming”

Nick Reo

The Daily Press of Escanaba, Michigan recently printed an article on the 2007 Consent Decree entitled “Agreement Long Time Coming“. The author provides balanced information and a useful summary of the context of this important agreement. The author references the fact that when the 1836 Treaty of Washington was signed, Michigan had not yet achieved state status; they also mentioned that Michigan became a state in 1837. It is worth emphasizing that this order of events is in no way merely coincidental. The 1836 Treaty of Washington ceded an enormous land area directly providing the land necessary for the formalization of Michigan’s statehood. This point can not be over emphasized and is a critical part of our collective history. The direct connection between this treaty and Michigan’s founding should be seen as an important part of the context when we think about and discuss the 2007 Consent Decree.

Coverage of Soo Tribe Vote

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

From Soo News:

Sault Ste. Marie Tribe Votes to Approve Inland Settlement

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

BIG NEWS!!!!

From the Soo Tribe website:

Membership Approves of Inland Consent Decree

Written by Cory Wilson

Thursday, 18 October 2007

The Sault Tribe Election Committee released the unofficial election results pertaining to the referendum on tribal members’ inland treaty rights, indicating 3,476 voted to approve, 678 voted to disapprove, while 28 ballots were deemed spoiled or unrecognizable.

The Election Committee announced that 4,182 ballots were received out of 12,734 mailed to the membership, accounting for a 32.8 % voter turnout. According to these results, this referendum exceeds the 30% vote requirement and therefore, is considered a valid election as defined by the election code.

On August 14, the Board of Directors determined an issue of such importance should be sent to a vote of the people by referendum to decide whether or not the tribe should enter into a permanent agreement with the state and federal government regarding tribal members’ rights related to inland fishing, hunting, and gathering. Subsequently, the referendum ballot language was approved on September 17, which asked tribal members “Do you approve or disapprove of resolution: Authorization to Ratify the Inland Consent Decree?” The election ballot was mailed to members on September 27. The deadline to return ballots was 5 p.m. on October 17.

The “Inland Consent Decree” is an agreement between five northern Michigan tribes, the state of Michigan, and the federal government that defines and details the specific treaty rights of tribal members. An “Agreement in Principal” was signed by all parties last summer, which committed all those involved to work together to formulate an agreement or settlement.

Following the release of the election results Chairperson Aaron Payment stated, ”Despite strident opposition from select board members to letting the people decide this issue, an overwhelming response of over 80 percent should put the issue to rest. I am satisfied with the outcome. The people have spoken.”

According to the tribe’s lead attorney, even though a referendum was held, official approval by resolution is still required. A special meeting of the Board of Directors is scheduled for Sunday, October 21 at 1:00 p.m. at the Kewadin Shores Casino in St. Ignace to accept the election results and to enact the resolution specifically outlined in the referendum.

The resolution titled, “Authorization to Ratify the Inland Consent Decree for U.S. v. MI” and states, “Whereas, the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians is currently engaged in the inland phase of the United States v. State of Michigan, informally know as “US v MI”, and the parties are: as Plaintiff, The United States of America, and as Plaintiff-Interveners, Bay Mills Indian Community, Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, Little River Band of Ottawa Indians, and Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, versus as Defendants, State of Michigan, et al, and as Amicus Curiae, the Michigan United Conservation Clubs, Bay De Noc Great Lakes Sportfisherman, Inc, and U.P. Whitetails, Inc, and finally as Amicus Curiae, the Coalition to Protect Michigan’s Resources, Stuart Cheney, Robert Andrus, Walloon Lake Trust and Conservancy (“Parties”); and…the Parties agreed to a binding settlement of the inland phase of US v. MI by executing an Agreement in Principle; and…upon execution of the Agreement in Principle the Parties agree to prepare a proposed consent decree and a stipulation for the entry of the proposed consent decree based upon the terms and conditions of the Agreement in Principle; and…through lengthy negotiations the Parties have completed a proposed consent decree and are presenting it to their respective governing bodies for ratification. Now therefore be it resolved, that the Board of Directors hereby ratifies the Inland Consent Decree. Be it further resolved, that the Board of Directors hereby authorizes the Chairperson, or his designees, to execute a stipulation for entry of the proposed consent decree, or other implementing documents as my be necessary.”

The Board of Directors is also scheduled to meet with the judge presiding over the Inland Consent Decree case on October 22, to finalize any other legal matters related to the case.

More News Coverage of the Inland Settlement

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

From WLUC: “DNR officials say the agreement should be acceptable to both Indians and non-Indians. Generally, you won’t see an impact not only to the state-licensed anglers and their opportunities to fish, but also in terms of their harvest,” said Kelly Smith of the DNR Fisheries Division. On October 22, the DNR, the tribes and an Assistant Attorney General will present the agreement to a judge. If it’s accepted, it’ll become law.”

From the Escanaba Daily Press: “The state’s consent decree with five Michigan Native American tribes is the culmination of a process over a century in the making. It also avoids a disastrous outcome in which the state could have had no regulatory power over tribal hunting and fishing in a wide section of the state. The 1836 Treaty of Washington was reached between the United States and the Ottawa and Chippewa tribes of what later became Michigan. The state of Michigan did not exist at the time of the treaty (it was founded in 1837).”

Dates of Mich. DNR Public Meetings on Inland Settlement

Kate Fort

As mentioned below, the Michigan DNR will be holding public meetings to distribute information and answer questions about the settlement agreement. Here are the dates for three of those meetings:

Escanaba, Tuesday, Oct. 16. The meeting will be held from 7 to 9 p.m. in Rooms 958-962 of the Joseph Heirman University Center at Bay de Noc College located at 2001 N. Lincoln Rd. in Escanaba.

Sault Ste. Marie, Wednesday, Oct. 17. The meeting will be held from 7 to 9 p.m. in the Sault Ste. Marie High School Theater located at 904 Marquette Ave. in Sault Ste. Marie.

Traverse City, Thursday, Oct. 18. The meeting will be held from 7 to 9 p.m. at the Garfield Township Hall located at 3843 Veterans Dr. in Traverse City.

Mich. DNR to Hold Public Meetings on Indian Settlement

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

From the Ironwood Daily Globe: “The Michigan Department of Natural Resources has planned a series of nine public meetings to discuss the recent Treaty of 1836 agreement on hunting, fishing and gathering rights that pertains to five Michigan Indian tribes.”

And Yet More Press Coverage of Inland Settlement

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

From the Detroit Free Press: “Some people argue that Indians who exercise their treaty rights should be required to use only the fishing and hunting gear available in 1836. But the treaty doesn’t say that, and if you read histories of northern Michigan in the 1830s, when Sault Ste. Marie was a much bigger town than Detroit, you’ll realize that the Indians already had a fairly substantial commercial net fishery going to supply the needs of their tribesmen and the white settlers.”