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 6038 Judge Crabb ruled that circumstances had not changed enough to warrant a review of her initial decision, and the tribes appealed. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Judge Crabb’s decision in October 2014, ruling that circumstances had changed sufficiently and that the evidence that had been presented suggested that night hunting was unlikely to create a serious safety problem. InOctober2015,afterthestateunsuccessfully appealed to the US Supreme Court, the District Court approved the tribes’ night hunting regulations. 1837 Treaty Case in Minnesota August 13, 1990 The Mille Lacs Band files suit. The Mille Lacs Band filed a suit against the State of Minnesota in federal court, claiming that the State’s natural resource laws and regulations violated the Band’s hunting, fishing and gather- ing rights guaranteed by the 1837 Treaty. In Fond du Lac v. Carlson, the Band sought a judgment that would affirm the 1837 Treaty rights, define their nature and scope, and define the permissible scope of state regulation of treaty harvest, if any. It also sought a court order pro- hibiting enforcement of state fish and game laws against band members except as specified by the court. September 30, 1993 The Fond du Lac Band files suit. The Fond du Lac Band filed a suit in federal court similar to the Mille Lacs suit but sought affirmation of rights reserved in both the 1837 and the 1854 Treaties. Fond du Lac also asked the court to define the nature and scope of the rights and the degree of state regulation, if any, permit- ted over treaty harvests. 1993 Minnesota Legislature rejects proposed negotiated agreement An effort to resolve the Mille Lacs 1837 Treaty issues out-of-court resulted in a pro- posed agreement between the State of Minnesota and the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe. The agree- ment contained many compromises between the parties. For instance, Mille Lacs would have limited its spearing and netting to 4.5% of Mille Lacs Lake and limited its walleye harvest in that area to 24,000 pounds per year. The State would have paid the Band $8.6 million a year and given them land in exchange for the limited harvest. The proposed agreement was approved by the Mille Lacs Band but rejected in 1993 by the Minnesota Legislature, which sent the parties back to court to settle the dispute. In 1993 other parties intervene in case The United States joined the suit on behalf of the Mille Lacs Band in 1993, and a group of counties and six landowners joined the State of Minnesota. August 24, 1994 Mille Lacs 1837 Treaty rights affirmed. The Phase I trial of the Mille Lacs 1837 Treaty case began in June 1994 and concluded on August 24, 1997 with a ruling from Judge Diana Murphy that the Mille Lacs Band did retain its treaty rights in the Minnesota 1837 Ceded Territory. Murphy ruled also that the treaty right includes the right to commercially harvest; that the rights were not limited to any particular tech- niques, methods, devices, or gear; and that the state could regulate treaty harvest only to the extent reasonable for conservation, public safety or public health reasons. March 22, 1995 Six Wisconsin bands intervene. Six Chippewa bands in Wisconsin, all signa- tories to the 1837 Treaty, were allowed to inter- vene on the side of the Mille Lacs Band in a ruling from U.S. Magistrate Judge Lebedoff. March 18, 1996 Fond du Lac’s 1837 and 1854 Treaty rights affirmed. Judge Richard Kyle, U.S. District Court, Fifth Division, affirmed the Fond du Lac Band’s 1837 and 1854 Treaty rights. Judge Kyle ruled that the nature and scope of the 1837 Treaty rights held