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 6031 APPENDIX I Popular misconceptions about Ojibwe treaty rights The courts have granted the Indians treaty hunting and fishing rights. Courts did not give hunting, fishing and gathering rights to the Ojibwe. Those rights were never relinquished. The Ojibwe have always had the hunting, fishing and gathering rights which were reaffirmed in the Wisconsin LCO decision and the Minnesota 1837 Treaty case. Those rights were retained by the Ojibwe when they ceded land to the United States through treaties made on a govern- ment-to-govemment basis. Even though the Ojibwe never sold or gave up hunting, fishing and gathering rights, the illegal imposition of state law on tribal hunters/fishermen effectively discouraged off-reservation harvest by tribal members in years past, as they were liable to be arrested and prosecuted. This is why the treaty rights needed to be affirmed through court decisions. Treaty rights are special rights enjoyed by Indians. Actually the hunting, fishing and gathering rights of the Ojibwe are known legally as usufructu- ary rights and are a form of property right. Similar property rights include the retention of mineral rights on land when it is sold, or, as in Louisiana, retaining the right to frail for pecans on land that is sold. Usufructuary rights allow people to keep the right to certain uses even though they sell the land. Property rights such as these are enjoyed by us all and are not a special right of Indian people. The Ojibwe have unlimited hunting, fishing and gathering rights on the ceded lands. When the LCO decision first hit the news in Wisconsin, the headlines proclaimed the Ojibwe’s treaty rights to be unlimited. This, however, is not true. In fact, the Ojibwe, under the many court rul- ings in the LCO case, exercise off-reservation rights in a limited fashion, subject to quotas, seasons and tribally-adopted regulations. In Minnesota, tribal harvest is also subject to the specifications of adopted court stipulations which limit treaty quotas, establish seasons and place other restrictions on the treaty harvests. Five- year management plans, one for the fishery and one for wildlife, provide the structure for a limited treaty harvest while safeguarding the resources. When the 1924 Indian Citizenship Act was passed, the Indian people gave up their tribal citizenship. This is simply not true, nor should it be. When the Indian people were granted citizenship by the United States, no provisions indicated that they must forfeit their tribal membership. The Act states that “granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property.” Most United States citizens are “dual” citizens simply because they are simultaneously citizens of towns, counties, states, and a nation. Each of these entities maintains a government regulating its citi- zenry to one extent or another. Similarly, Indian people retain membership in their tribes while also retaining United States citizenship.