# Treaty Rights Issue Goes Inland



## Hamilton Reef (Jan 20, 2000)

MUCC Policy Report 10/21/05

(Snippet)

Treaty Rights Issue Goes Inland

MUCC, operating as amici (or friends of the court), has entered into negotiations between the state of Michigan and the five tribal governments which are bringing suit against the state regarding their hunting and fishing rights found within the treaty of 1836. While I cant go into detail regarding the progress of the negotiations, I can promise you that MUCC has been, and will be there every step of the way to be certain the Michigans hunting, fishing, and recreating public is represented.

Attached below is the recent editorial which was published in the November issue of MOODplease read it over and call us if you have any questions.

If you have any questions about what has been happening with the case contact Jason Dinsmore, MUCC resource policy specialist, at 517/346-6484.

-----------------

A legal case to decide if five native American tribal groups have special rights to hunt, trap, fish, and gather in vast inland areas of Michiganand, if so, the extent of those rightsgoes to trial in January before Federal District Court.

The stakes are immense for all who treasure Michigans outdoor heritage and the resources on which it is based. Now more than ever, conservationists must unite behind Michigan United Conservation Clubs and other groups lending legal support to the Department of Natural Resources in the case.

Were talking about whether deer will be hunted by tribal members in the summer, and whether their take will be limited in any way. Were talking about whether steelhead and walleye will be speared or netted in inland lakes and streams. But were talking about much more. 

Were also talking about whether the Treaty of 1836 permits the tribes to exploit everything from trout to timber without state restriction on any land or water, public or private, that is in the treaty area and not in a city or actively farmed.

The tribes, represented by the U.S. government, now claim the 168-year-old treaty gives them extraordinary access and taking rights in state and local parks, state and national forests, private commercial forests, private hunting and fishing clubs, wildlife preserves, and land conservancies, and on all private lakes and streams in the treaty area.

That sweeping interpretation is based on the treatys Article 13, which states: The Indians stipulate for the right of hunting on the lands ceded, with the other usual privileges of occupancy, until this land is required for settlement.

The lands and waters ceded by the Indians in 1836 are all those north and west of a line running roughly from the Grand River to Alpena and include the eastern half of the Upper Peninsula. The tribes claim that about 65 percent of that areamore than six million acres of private and public landare by their definition unsettled and therefore open to their unfettered use.

Anglers have been concerned about the issue since the 1960s, when tribal fishermen cited the Treaty of 1836 in defying the DNRs early efforts to rid Great Lakes waters of the scourge of gillnets. From those beginnings, MUCC has played a strong and constructive role in representing its members on treaty issues. We have consistently acted in defense of our states natural resources, the need to manage them wisely, and the general publics right to enjoy them. 

An agreement we helped to forge in 2000, plus economic realities, have caused Great Lakes tribal fishermen to turn to less indiscriminant gear, and gillnets are less of a problem today. But now is no time for apathy.

Michigans interior lands and waters, public and private, are threatened by the tribes assertion of a right to exploit those resources without state regulation. We couldnt let their claim on the Great Lakes go unmet four decades ago, and we cannot leave this new claim unchallenged. 

Hunters now have as much at stake as anglers in the treaty litigation. And landowners who neither hunt nor fish now have at least as much at risk as sportsmen and sportswomen if the DNR, MUCC, Michigan Fisheries Resource Conservation Coalition, and other pro-resource parties do not prevail before the court.

The long trail of treaty litigation already has cost MUCC alone hundreds of thousands of dollars. Despite the expense, we owe it to Michigan conservationists whove gone before and conservationists not yet born to persevere. But that cant happen if todays conservationists grow apathetic.

Michigan Out-of-Doors will endeavor to keep MUCC members and other readers informed of how the case is progressing. In return, we ask those who stand to be impacted by the final decisionin other words, everyone, resident and nonresident, who loves Michigans outdoorsto help our shared cause by contributing to the MUCC Legal Defense Fund.


----------

