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 6010 As the LCO case proceeded through its vari- ous subphases dealing with particular species and activities, the need for interim agreements disap- peared. Each court ruling brought approval of more permanent regulations for governing treaty harvest, and the tribes enacted these regulations in their off-reservation conservation codes. The tribes’ off-reservation conservation codes are one part of a larger, tribal Ceded Territory management system. The elements of this system are: Chippewa Intertribal Co-management Agreement: This is formally called the Chippewa Intertribal Agreement Governing Resource Management and Regulation of Off-Reservation Treaty Rights in the Ceded Territory. Through this agreement, the tribes pledge to work together to make sure that they comply with the LCO case rulings. The tribes recognize that they share the treaty rights and that intertribal coop- eration is necessary. Natural Resource Management Plans: The tribes adopted Ceded Territory management plans for walleye, muskellunge, deer and bear. These plans lay out the tribes’ shared manage- ment goals and set forth a common understand- ing of the types of regulations necessary to meet biological requirements. Harvest Declaration Protocols: The tribes adopted harvest declaration protocols for fish (walleye and muskellunge), antlerless deer, bear, otter, fisher and migratory birds. The protocols require the tribes to tell the WDNR what the tribes intend to harvest in the upcoming seasons. If necessary, the state can then adjust state har- vests to make sure that total harvest stays within biologically safe levels. Conservation Codes: As part of the LCO case, the tribes adopted a model, off-reservation conservation code that contains the required regulations. The model code outlines the mini- mumlevelofregulationthatthetribesmustadopt to comply with the court’s rulings. Each tribe must enact its own code that is no less restrictive than the model code. A tribe can choose to be more restrictive. Tribal off-reservation harvest for any re- source, be it fish, fowl, furbearer or plant, is governed by these conservation codes. The codes set seasons, define allowable harvest gear and methods, impose permit requirements, and set bag limits. They also impose a variety of other restrictions important for conservation of the resources, for public health and safety, and for meeting tribal needs. The LCO decision The LCO ruling applies to the hunting, fish- ing and gathering rights of the Ojibwe on ceded lands covering approximately one-third of north- ern Wisconsin, over 12 million acres, including land and water. The LCO case in Wisconsin began in 1973 when the LCO Band of Chippewa filed suit against the State of Wisconsin for interfering with tribal hunting, fishing and gathering activi- ties guaranteed in the Treaties of 1837 and 1842. LCO lost in Federal District Court with a 1978 Summary Judgment in favor of the State of Wisconsin, and the action was dismissed. The 1978 Judgment said that all rights under the treaties had been revoked by the Treaty of 1854, which established LCO’s reservation. Omaamiginaanaa-zhingobaandagoon—gathering balsam. For Lac du Flambeau zhingob (balsam) harvesters Clyde Mann (left) and Ken Jack, zhingob boughs are a source of seasonal income.