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 6015 The court also ruled that the band could pre- vent state regulation if it enacted its own regu- lations that met conservation, public health and public safety concerns. The court limited the ex- ercise of treaty harvest on private lands to those lands open to public hunting by state law, such as tree growth tax lands. This ruling set the stage for Phase II of the Mille Lacs case. In 1995, before Phase II proceeded, the six Wisconsin Ojibwe bands were allowed to join the case in 1995. These are the same bands whose treaty rights were affirmed in the LCO case for the Wisconsin 1837 Ceded Territory. The Mille Lacs and Fond du Lac cases contin- ued on separate tracks until the summer of 1996. At about the same time Phase II of Mille Lacs liti- gation was to begin, Judge Richard Kyle affirmed the Fond du Lac Band’s 1837 Treaty rights. Judge Kyle ruled that the Fond du Lac Band’s rights in the 1837 Ceded Territory were the same as those that Judge Murphy found to exist for the Mille Lacs Band in her 1994 ruling. At the state’s request, the court then joined the 1837 Treaty issues of the two cases for Phase II purposes and for these issues the cases proceeded on a consoli- dated basis. In Phase II, the Mille Lacs, Fond du Lac and six Wisconsin bands cooperatively developed a proposed set of tribal regulations for the Minne- sota Ceded Territory that was eventually ap- proved by the court. On January 29, 1997, Judge Michael Davis issued a ruling on Phase II issues and ordered that final judgment be entered in the Mille Lacs case. The court approved a stipulation between the bands and the state that set forth agreed- upon tribal regulations to govern the exercise of the rights, and, over the objection of the state, the court also approved two other regulations pro- posed by the tribes—one allowing deer hunting in December at night while shining over bait and another allowing the use of gillnets in several lakes under 1,000 acres in size. The court ruled that if the bands properly enact these regulations into tribal law and effec- tively enforce them, state laws do not apply. It also ruled that an allocation of natural resources between treaty and non-treaty harvests was un- necessary at the time. Judge Davis also approved a dispute resolu- tion process agreed to by the bands and state. This process called for the establishment of two com- mittees, one for fishery issues and the other for wildlife and wild plant issues. These committees would be the primary cooperative management bodies where information would be exchanged, possible regulatory changes would be discussed, and issues would be resolved. The bands and state agreed to mediate any unresolved disputes. If mediation fails, either party may ask the court to resolve the matter. The court agreed to maintain continuing jurisdiction over these matters. The state, counties and landowners all ap- pealed Judge Murphy’s and Judge Davis’ decisions in the Mille Lacs case. In April 1997, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals suspended treaty har- vest while the case was on appeal, except for lim- ited ceremonial fishing for the Mille Lacs Band. On August 26, 1997, the Appellate Court upheld the lower court decisions in their en- tirety and in October 1997 lifted the suspension on treaty harvest. In November 1997 the Eighth Circuit rejected requests by the state, counties and landowners to reconsider its ruling. At Minnesota’s request, the United States Supreme Court agreed to review lower court rul- ings regarding the 1855 Treaty, the 1850 Removal Order and the effect of Minnesota’s statehood on the bands’ treaty rights. On March 24, 1999, the Supreme Court up- held the treaty rights of the Ojibwe in Minnesota’s 1837 Treaty Ceded Territory. This ruling effec- tively ended all debate over the existence of the bands’ 1837 treaty rights in Minnesota. GLIFWC is one of five intertribal commissions in the United States. All assist their member tribes in the implementation of off-reservation treaty rights. Other commissions include: the 1854 Treaty Authority (Minnesota), the Chippewa Ottawa Resource Authority (CORA) (Michigan), the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission (NWIFC) (Washington), and the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission CRITFC (Oregon, Washington and Idaho).