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 6036 January 25, 1983 U.S. Court of Appeals rules in favor of Lac Courte Oreilles In its January 1983 ruling the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit agreed with the Lake Superior Chippewa that hunting, fishing and gathering rights were reserved and protected in a series of treaties between the Chippewa and the United States government. This decision has be- come known as the LCO decision. A three-judge panel reversed Doyle’s earlier ruling, concluding that treaty rights were not re- linquished in the 1854 Treaty when reservations were established and that the 1850 Removal Order had not extinguished the reserved treaty rights. The Seventh Circuit also returned the case to District Court to “determine the scope of state regulation” and the scope of the rights. This rul- ing was appealed by the State of Wisconsin to the U.S. Supreme Court. LCO v. WI (LCO I), 700 F2d 341 (7th Cir. 1983). October 3, 1983 The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal of the Seventh Circuit’s ruling, known as the LCO decision. The refusal to hear the case affirmed the ruling of the 7th Circuit. Five other Chippewa bands in Wisconsin who were signatories to the 1837 and 1842 Treaties joined with Lac Courte Oreilles in the final arguments, consequently the ruling applies to the rights retained by all six bands. The other bands include: Bad River, Red Cliff, St. Croix, Lac du Flambeau, and Mole Lake/Sokaogon. 1987 Doyle decision: Scope of the treaty right In February 1987 Judge James Doyle ruled on Phase I of the LCO litigation regarding the scope of the rights. Doyle found that the Chippewa tribes could: 1.) use traditional methods and sell the harvest employing modern methods of sale and distribution; 2.) exercise the rights on private lands if proven necessary to provide a modest liv- ing; 3.) harvest a quantity sufficient to ensure a modest living. Doyle also concluded that the state may impose restrictions which are proven necessary to conserve a particular resource. LCO v. WI (LCO III),653 F Supp 1420 (WD Wis 1987). 1987 Crabb decision: Scope of state regulation On August 21, 1987, Judge Barbara Crabb issued an order establishing the legal standards “for the permissible bounds of state regulation” of Chippewa off-reservation usufructuary activi- ties. Crabb decided that “effective tribal self-reg- ulation…precludes concurrent state regulation.” Judge Crabb further ruled that the state may reg- ulate “where the regulations are reasonable and necessary to prevent or ameliorate a substantial risk to the public health and safety, and does not discriminate against the Indians.” LCO v. WI (LCO IV), 668 F Supp 1233 (WD Wis 1987). 1988 Crabb decision: Modest standard of living defined Judge Barbara Crabb determined that the Chippewa’s “Modest living needs cannot be met from the present available harvest even if they were physically capable of harvesting, processing, and gathering it.” Thus, 100% of the resources in the ceded area were considered available for treaty harvest within limits that require resource conservation. LCO v. WI (LCO V), 686 F Supp 266 (WD Wis 1988). 1989 Crabb decision: Walleye and muskellunge On March 3, 1989, Judge Barbara Crabb issued a decision relating to walleye and mus- kellunge which incorporated parts of both the state and tribal plan. The decision required the “Total Allowable Catch” to be replaced by a far more conservative harvest level termed the “Safe Harvest.” Previously, walleye were allocated on a lake by lake basis with 7% of the adult popula- tion set aside for tribal quotas, 28% for sport har- vest, and the remaining 65% for maintenance of fish stocks. However, the new Safe Harvest Level instituted another safety factor to be added to the 65% for maintenance of fish stocks, thereby reducing the combined harvest for tribal and sport users alike. The Safe Harvest Level, calculated using sta- tistical techniques considering age/reliability of population data, significantly reduces the harvest level for many lakes. For instance the total safe harvest in some lakes may be only 8% of the pop-