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 6032 The treaties signed are old and should not apply to today’s circumstances. Agreements between governments, or individuals, are not invalidated by age. Sometimes new agreements are negotiated if both parties consent, but age alone does not render an agreement or treaty invalid. The U.S. Constitution states that “treaties are the supreme law of the land.” Recent fed- eral court decisions define the scope and regulation of treaty rights, making them compatible with contemporary circumstances. Treaties should only apply to full-blooded Indians. It is important to remember that treaty rights are not individual rights; they are tribal rights. The rights belong to the tribe as a body. Therefore, a person can exercise the tribally-owned treaty rights only as a member of the tribe under the regulations the tribe has established. Tribal membership is determined by the tribe as a sovereign, self-regulating government. Tribes determine membership through varying criteria. Some, for instance, use blood quantum, while others may use birthright. Members of a tribe which was signatory to a treaty reserving hunting, fishing and gathering rights can legally exercise those rights under their tribe’s off-reservation ordinances. The Indians should only be able to use the methods of harvest available at the time of the treaties. Federal courts have ruled that the Ojibwe may use modern methods of harvest. Nothing in the treaties states that the Ojibwe could not use improved equipment or methods. However, some argue that if the Ojibwe want to exercise rights retained in old treaties, they should use the methods and equipment of that time. If that argument is pursued, the Ojibwe could likewise insist that all the development and exploi- tation that has diminished the resources on the ceded lands should be removed as well. Rolling back time for one party of an agreement is neither logical nor fair. If the Ojibwe are to go back in time, then the non-Indian side should also move backwards in time. Protesters prepare for an on-water protest at a Stop Treaty Abuse rally held at Butternut Lake, Ashland County, in 1987. Signs used stereotyped images and slogans that were deroga- tory and often threatening.