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 6035 1972 Gurnoe v. Wisconsin (Gurnoe decision) The Wisconsin Supreme Court decided in favor of the Bad River and Red Cliff tribes. Based on the 1854 Treaty, the court found that fishing in the off-reservation waters of Lake Superior was a protected treaty right and that any regula- tions that the state seeks to enforce against the Chippewa are reasonable and necessary to pre- vent a substantial depletion of the fish supply. The State of Wisconsin and the tribes have suc- cessfully negotiated agreements for the treaty commercial fishing activity since the time of the decision. 1974 U.S. v. Washington (Boldt decision) ThisdecisionfromtheU.S.DistrictCourtup- held the right of tribes in the Pacific Northwest to fish and to manage fisheries under early treaties; determined they are entitled to an opportunity to equally share in the harvest of fish in their tra- ditional fishing areas, and found the state regu- lations which go beyond conserving the fishery to affect the time, place, manner and volume of the off-reservation treaty fishery are illegal. This decision was upheld by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review District Court rulings. 1975 Indian Self-Determination Act This act by the U.S. Congress provided that tribal governments could contract for and administrate federal funds for services previously provided through the federal bureaucracy. It allowed more individual tribal self-determina- tion in both identifying needs and administrat- ing on-reservation programs. It served to bolster and make more meaningful the policy of tribal self-determination. 1981 United States v. Michigan (Fox decision) The U.S. Federal District Court, Western District of Michigan, affirmed the rights of Bay Mills, Sault Ste. Marie and Grand Traverse Bands of Michigan Chippewa to fish in ceded areas of the Great Lakes in the boundaries of Michigan based on the 1836 Treaty. Judge Fox ruled the rights retained were not abrogated by subsequent treaties or congressional acts. Subsequent pro- ceeding also upheld the tribes’ rights to regulate their members. The LCO case in Wisconsin March 8, 1974 LCO tribal members arrested Fred and Mike Tribble, enrolled members of the Lac Courte Oreilles Band (LCO), were arrested on Chief Lake by Wisconsin Depart- ment of Natural Resources (WDNR) wardens Milton Dieckman and Larry Miller for posses- sion of a spear for taking fish from off-reservation waters and for occupying a fish shanty without name and address attached. The Tribble brothers were fishing off-reservation and were later found guilty of the charges by Sawyer County Circuit Judge Alvin Kelsey. March 18, 1975 Lac Courte Oreilles files suit against the State of Wisconsin The Lac Courte Oreilles Band filed suit on behalf of all its members in Western District Federal Court, requesting a court order directing the State of Wisconsin to stop enforcing state law against tribal members on the basis of the tribe’s treaty reserved rights to hunt, fish and gather off- reservation. Judge James Doyle was presiding and Lester P. Voigt, then Secretary of the WDNR, was named as a defendant along with Sawyer County Sheriff Donald Primley, Sawyer County District Attorney Norman Yackel and the two arresting wardens. Four years later Judge James Doyle ruled that the Lake Superior Chippewa Band mem- bers had relinquished their off-reservation rights when they accepted permanent reservations pur- suant to the Treaty of 1854 and that the 1850 Presidential Removal Order had also with- drawn the rights in question. Lac Courte Oreilles appealed Doyle’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.