Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14 Page 15 Page 16 Page 17 Page 18 Page 19 Page 20 Page 21 Page 22 Page 23 Page 24 Page 25 Page 26 Page 27 Page 28 Page 29 Page 30 Page 31 Page 32 Page 33 Page 34 Page 35 Page 36 Page 37 Page 38 Page 39 Page 40 Page 41 Page 42 Page 43 Page 44 Page 45 Page 46 Page 47 Page 48 Page 49 Page 50 Page 51 Page 52 Page 53 Page 54 Page 55 Page 56 Page 57 Page 58 Page 59 Page 608 Treaty rights in Wisconsin, Minnesota and Michigan Treaty rights are exercised today in Wiscon- sin, Minnesota and Michigan in various ways. In some instances, tribes exercise their rights under federal court orders. This is the case in the Wisconsin 1837 and 1842 Ceded Territories and in the Minnesota 1837 Ceded Territory. In other instances, tribes exercise their rights as a result of state court rulings, such as in the Wisconsin and Michigan waters of Lake Superior. In some cases, litigation has been avoided altogether in favor of intergovernmental agreements that acknowledge and implement Ceded Territory, treaty-reserved rights. For example, all GLIFWC member tribes are signatories to the Memorandum of Under- standing with the U.S. Forest Service that governs the tribes’ gathering rights on four National Forests within the Ceded Territory. The extent of a Ceded Territory does not always control what court will define the treaty rights. For example, the 1837 Ceded Territory is located both in Wisconsin and Minnesota. The LCO case affirmed the rights in the Wisconsin portion of the Ceded Territory and prevented the State of Wisconsin from interfering with the rights. The Mille Lacs and Fond du Lac cases af- firmed the rights in the Minnesota portion of the Ceded Territory and prevented the State of Minnesota from interfering with the rights.