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 6021 In a 1981 decision known as the Fox decision, District Judge Noel Fox wrote: “This court adopts the meaning of the 1836 treaty consistent with the canons of construction. Under the 1836 treaty of cession, the Indians granted a large tract of land and water area to the United States. At the same time they reserved the right to fish in the ceded waters of the Great Lakes.” In 2000, the parties were able to resolve their long-standing differences concerning the imple- mentation of tribal treaty-reserved fishing rights and agreed to a 20-year settlement. The agree- ment between the parties includes provisions regarding allocation, management, and regula- tion of state and tribal fisheries in the waters of LakesMichigan,HuronandSuperiorcededbythe tribes in the 1836 Treaty. The parties have agreed to work cooperatively to resolve issues that arise during the term of the agreement through inter- governmental consultation between the tribes and the state. An important aspect of the settlement is the creation of a Technical Fisheries Committee (TFC). The TFC is an inter-governmental body comprised of biologists that seeks to resolve issues using the best available science and strives for consensus among all parties. Inland treaty rights in Michigan Exercise of treaty rights in the 1842 inland Ceded Territory takes place under the rationale of decisions in other federal courts regarding Ceded Territories that extend into Michigan. The 1842 Ceded Territory extends across northern Wisconsin into Michigan’s Upper Peninsula. While the LCO case specifically upheld the bands’ 1842 Treaty rights in Wisconsin, it is extremely likely that those same rights would be upheld in Michigan. Under the rationale of court cases interpreting the same or similar treaties in Wisconsin and Minnesota, band treaty regulations are designed to meet the state’s legitimate conservation public health and public safety concerns. In October 2003, the State of Michigan requested the federal court to decide whether inland treaty rights in the 1836 Ceded Territory continue to exist, and if they do, where they can be exercised. In 2005, the parties explored the willingness of everyone to resolve all the issues relatedto1836Treatyinlandrightsbynegotiation rather than litigation. Their efforts were finalized in a Consent Decree in September 2007. In the Consent Decree, Michigan acknowl- edgespermanentrecognitionofthetribes’ “Inland Article 13 Rights.” It also creates two categories of land and inland waters: those on which tribal members are subject to tribal seasons and those on which tribal members are subject to state seasons. Limited ceremonial use permits can be utilized anywhere in the 1836 cession area regard- less of season but require the consent of the private landowner if used on private lands. The Consent Decree establishes that all activities of tribal members—whether hunting, fishing, trapping, or gathering—are subject to the exclu- sive regulation of their tribe. Tribal wardens have the primary responsibility to enforce these regulations, and violations are referred to the tribal court. The Consent Decree also provides for the allocation of scarce resources. (See Appendix III) Tribal members Charlie Fox and Roger LaBine reseed manoomin (wild rice) in Lac Vieux Desert’s Rice Bay. Ojibwe people continue to rely on this tradi- tional food and lead in manoomin en- hancement in the Ceded Territories.