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 6037 ulation, versus 35% in previous years. Using that Safe Harvest Level figure, the tribes may allocate up to 100% for tribal harvest quota. LCO vs. WI (LCO VI), 707 F Supp 1034 (WD Wis 1989). 1989 Lac Courte Oreilles v. State of Wisconsin Judge Barbara Crabb denied the State of Wisconsin’s request for an injunction to stop tribal spearfishing, a practice outlawed by state statute, so that tribal harvest activities would not overlap with opening day of the state sport- fishing season for fear of violence on the lakes. Federal Judge Barbara Crabb responded: “As a matter of law, the fact that some are acting ille- gally and creating justified fears of violence, does not justify abridging the rights of those who have done nothing illegal or improper.” Lac Courte Oreilles v. State of Wisconsin, Docket No. 1027, No. 74-C-313-C, (W.D.Wis. June 5, 1989). 1990 Crabb decision: Deer and small game On May 9, 1990, Judge Barbara Crabb issued a decision on deer hunting and trapping of small game and furbearers under the 1837 and 1842 Treaties in Wisconsin. Judge Crabb ruled that the tribes may hunt deer the day after Labor Day until December 31, but that they may not hunt at night by use of a flashlight. She also ruled that the tribes may hunt on publicly-owned lands and on privately- owned lands that are enrolled in Wisconsin’s Forest Crop Land and Managed Forest Land Tax Programs. At this time, tribes may not hunt on other privately-owned lands even if the owner consents. Similarly, the tribes may not place traps on the beds of flowages and streams which are privately-owned. As to the apportionment and allocation of deer and other species, Judge Crabb ordered that “all of the harvestable natural resources in the Ceded Territory are declared to be apportioned equally between the [tribes] and non-Indians.” It is unclear if the ruling applies to species other than deer, small game and furbearers. It is equally unclear to what extent, if any, previous rules on allocation of walleye and muskellunge are over- turned or otherwise affected. LCO v. WI (LCO VII), 740 F Supp 1400 (WD Wis 1990). 1991 Crabb decision: Timber and forest products On February 21, 1991, Judge Barbara Crabb issued a decision on timber rights. She ruled that the Chippewa tribes did not reserve a treaty right to harvest timber commercially. However, the tribes do have a treaty right to gather miscella- neous forest products, such as maple sap, birch bark, and fire wood; and are subject to nondis- criminatory state, and county regulations. The timber decision was the final step at the District Court level. LCO v. WI (LCO IX), 758 F Supp 1262 (WD Wis 1991). May 20, 1991: LCO litigation concludes with no appeals Both the six Chippewa Bands in Wisconsin and the State of Wisconsin were allowed the op- portunity to appeal rulings in the Federal District Court concerning phases of LCO. However, the deadline for filing appeals in May 1991 passed with neither party appealing any issue. On May 20,1991, the Chippewa announced their decision not to appeal with the following message: “The six bands of Lake Superior Chip- pewa, allied for many years in litigation against the State of Wisconsin in order to confirm and uphold their treaty right to hunt, fish and gather, and now secure in the con- viction that they have preserved these rights for the generations to come, have this day foregone their right to further appeal and dispute adverse rulings in this case, includ- ing a district court ruling barring them from damages. They do this, knowing that the sub- ject of the latter ruling is currently before the United States Supreme Court of Appeals and other federal courts. They do this as a gesture of peace and friendship towards the people of Wisconsin, in a spirit they hope may someday be reciprocated on the part of the general citi- zenry and officials of this state.” Litigation re-opened In 2013 an aspect of the “Deer Trial” was reopened in Federal District Court, Western District, with six plaintiff Ojibwe tribes in Wis- consin seeking relief from a 1991 judgment pro- hibiting night hunting of deer.