GLIFWC Publishes Report on Invasive Species in Anishinaabe Ceded Territories

Here is “Forest Invasives Regulatory Review:
Existing Regulations, Enforcement Strategies, Gathering Codes and Response Plans in the 1836, 1837, and 1842 Ojibwe Ceded Territories
” by
Steve Garske
Philomena Kebec.

LCO Treaty Rights Camp Update

Iron County is going to postpone its prosecution of treaty rights campers, article here. An excerpt:

People at the Lac Courte Orielles harvest camp in northern Wisconsin will not face eviction any time soon as Iron County Board members decided Tuesday night to postpone any directives to its district attorney to seek civil and criminal charges.

The board referred the matter to the county forestry committee, the group that originally approved a year-long stay for the camp. It next meets Aug. 13.

The Lac Courte Orielles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa camp of two dozen wigwams sits near the area where Gogebic Taconite is exploring a proposed mine site. Clashes in the past few months with mining officials and those opposed to the practice have elevated the public knowledge of the camp. The band is using the camp to highlight the natural resources it says are at risk due to the proposed mining.

IPR on Tribal Treaty Rights and Wolf Hunts


An excerpt:

An animal that’s a symbol of the wild, and once nearly exterminated, has repopulated the upper Great Lakes region. In fact, the gray wolf exceeded recovery goals, times ten, over the last decade.

And now wolves are doing so well, states that manage them are opening hunting seasons on them. Some say there are just too many to coexist with people.

But a few Indian tribes argue that their treaty rights call for wolves to fill every niche in the landscape.

Wolf Brother
In the upper Great Lakes, Indian tribes still have rights to hunt, fish and gather plants in wide swaths of territory that go back to treaties signed in the mid-1800’s. Usually it’s pretty straightforward for the tribes and the states to agree on how many fish or deer to take.

But with wolves, tribal officials say, it’s different. Their creation stories tell how the wolf was sent as a companion for the people. Tribes of the Great Lakes consider the wolf as kin. And the Creator told them the fate of wolves and the people are intertwined, as one goes, so goes the other.

“As we see the wolf returning or gaining strength, just as we Ojibway, Anishinaabe people have, we see that relationship,” says Kurt Perron, chair of the Bay Mills Community in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula. “So that’s what concerns us with the hunt.  It’s almost like you’re hunting our brothers.”

Now maybe that’s mostly symbolic, but not entirely. Because Perrin thinks if top predators are removed from the ecosystem, the effects will cascade through other species. And eventually humans may be affected.

Peter Erlinder on Minnesota v. Mille Lacs Band

Peter Erlinder has posted a great paper, “State of Minnesota v. Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians, Ten Years On,” on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

In State of Minnesota v. Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians, 526 U.S. 172 (1999) the Supreme Court unanimously held that, by guaranteeing Anishinabe (Chippewa) rights to hunt, fish and gather, U.S. treaty negotiators severed the right to use the land from formal title to the land in an 1837 (and 1854) Treaty. The Mille Lacs majority and dissent differed only as to whether Treaty-guaranteed usufructuary property rights had been abrogated by subsequent events. The majority held the usufructuary rights had not been abrogated.

Off-Reservation Anishinabe Usufructuary Property Rights in Northern Minnesota

With respect to Minnesota Territory, not ceded in 1837 and 1854 Treaties, two major questions remain after the Mille Lacs decision: (a) did the Anishinabe have treaty-guaranteed usufructuary rights outside the 1837 and 1854 ceded territory; and (b) if so, are treaty-guaranteed usufructuary rights outside the 1837 and 1854 ceded territory, are also valid today? This article answers these questions by elaborating Minnesota treaty history to include usufructuary property rights guaranteed in Treaties of 1795, 1825, 1826, as well as, a relatively unrecognized clause of the 1854 Treaty, all of which guarantee some form of usufructuary property rights outside the 1837 and 1854 ceded territory. The article concludes that these treaties, largely ignored by the courts until now, are likely to be sources of as yet unrecognized Anishinabe usufructuary property rights in the 21st Century.

Modern Usufructuary Rights and Natural Resource Co-Management

Further, because usufructuary property rights include “the right to modest living,” environmental protection to maintain the long-term value of these property rights will have significant long term off-reservation land-use.