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 6040 APPENDIX III U.S. v. Michigan US v. Michigan, 471 F. Supp. 192. These cases involve a long series of litigation that encompassed both the Michigan State Supreme Court and United States Federal Courts between the Bay Mills Indian Community; the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians; the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians; the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians; the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians; the United States; and the State of Michigan. U.S. District Judge Noel Fox, in the case that is often called the Fox decision wrote: “This court adopts the meaning of the 1836 treaty consis- tent with the canons of construction. Under the 1836 treaty of cession, the Indians granted a large tract of land and water area to the United States. At the same time they reserved the right to fish in the ceded wa- ters of the Great Lakes.” He continued: “Because of the documented evidence demonstrating that the Indians were absolutely dependent upon fishing for subsistence and their livelihood, and reading the treaty as the Indians would have understood it, they would not have relinquished their right to fish in the ceded waters of the Great Lakes. Since the treaty does not contain language granting away the prior right to fish, that right remains with the Indians and was confirmed by the 1836 treaty.” Article thirteenth of the 1836 Treaty reads: “The Indians stipulate for the right of the hunting on the lands ceded, with the other usual privileges of occu- pancy, until the land is required for settlement.” Judge Fox determined: “The language contained in Article Thirteenth of the Treaty of 1836, by its own terms could not have limited the Indians ‘right to fish in the waters of the Great Lakes’ because these large bod- ies of water could not possibly be settled by homes, barns and tilled fields. While the Indians might have been willing to give up their right to hunt on vari- ous parcels of land as that land became occupied with settlers, the vital right to fish in the Great Lakes was something that the Indians understood would not be taken from them and, indeed, there was no need to do so…” 2000 Consent Decree In 2000, the parties were able to resolving their long-standing differences concerning the imple- mentation of tribal treaty reserved fishing rights and agreed to a 20-year settlement. The agreement of the partiesincludesprovisionsregardingallocation,man- agement, and regulation of state and tribal fisheries in the waters of Lakes Michigan, Huron and Superior ceded by the tribes in the Treaty of Washington of March 28, 1836. The parties have agreed to work cooperatively to resolve issues that arise during the term of the agreement through inter-governmental consultation between the tribes and the state. An important aspect of the settlement is the creation of a Technical Fisheries Committee (TFC). The TFC will be an inter-governmental body comprised of bi- ologists that will seek to resolve issues using the best available science. The TFC will strive for consensus among all parties. 2007 Consent Decree InOctober,2003,theStateofMichiganrequested the federal court to decide whether inland treaty rights continue to exist, and if they do, where they can be exercised. The five 1836 Treaty tribes along with the U.S., agreed that inland treaty rights needed to be resolved. In late summer of 2005, the parties explored the willingness of everyone to resolve all the issues related to 1836 Treaty inland rights by negotia- tion, rather than litigation. Their efforts were final- ized in a Consent Decree in early September, 2007. The Consent Decree contains acknowledgement by the State of Michigan of the permanent recogni- tion of tribes’ “Inland Article 13 Rights.” It also cre- ates two categories of land and inland waters; those on which tribal members are subject to tribal sea- sons, and those on which tribal members are subject to state seasons. Limited ceremonial use permits can be utilized anywhere in the 1836 cession area regard- less of season, but require the consent of the private landowner if used on private lands. The Consent Decree establishes that all activities of tribal mem- bers—whether hunting, fishing, trapping, or gather- ing—are subject to the exclusive regulation of their tribe. Tribal wardens have the primary responsibil- ity of enforcement of these regulations and violations are referred to the tribal court. The Consent Decree also provides for the allocation of scarce resources.