I’m not singling anyone, but I’m not one who approves of uneducated comments. 5 years ago I did a lot of digging into this issue and formed a formal report on everything dating back to the 1800’s. The following is the article I wrote with sources cited if anyone chooses to question. Keep in mind that this was written in 2002 and for a broad audience. It may change your stand on the whole ordeal.
April 15, 2002
Mille Lacs lake Regulations
Over the past seven years the topic of Mille Lacs lake has been a very controversial topic for anglers and the Mille Lacs band of Chippewa Indians. Over a hundred years ago, treaties were put in place that gave Indians the rights to hunt and fish in the Mille Lacs reservation. Recently changes were made to the treaty and all issues are in the process of being resolved in lawsuits. Because the lawsuits remain unsettled, thousands of anglers who fish the lake are upset and confused. Many anglers are poorly informed and unaware of the legal action that has been taking place. This topic has not been given the publicity that it needs.
In 1837, the Mille Lacs band of Chippewa Indians were given the option to keep the land that they currently held or take the land the United States government gave them. The catch was that if they agreed to take the land that the U.S. gave them, they would receive twenty annual payments of both money and goods. (Krogseng 2) The band found the proposal to have themselves moved to be very appealing because the conditions they were under at that time were not supporting the band very well. The proposal included money for starting businesses and for agricultural needs, 19 thousand dollars in goods, and five hundred dollars in tobacco. The United States wanted to make the offer appear very appealing so that the Government would be able to put the Chippewa band on to land designated by the states. If the U.S. were able to get the Indians to agree on taking the offer placed in front of them, they would be able to have better control over the Chippewa tribe. There was a catch to the treaty agreement. “The fifth article of the treaty contained the following clause: The privilege of hunting, fishing and gathering of wild rice upon the lands, the rivers, and the lakes included in the territory ceded, is guaranteed to the Indians, during the pleasure of the President of the United States” (Krogseng 2). This statement is basically saying that all of the land that the Indians were designated was under complete control of the president. If the president ever wanted the rights revoked, he would be able to do so as he pleased. “Additionally, the United States granted the Chippewa a quite limited privilege to hunt and fish” (Supreme Court 1).
In 1850, President Taylor exercised his rights as President by revoking the Indians privileges that were given to them by order of the treaty of 1837 by means of executive order.
“The executive order provides that: the privileges granted temporarily to the Chippewa Indians of the Mississippi by the fifth article of the treaty made with them on the 29th of July 1837, of hunting, fishing and gathering of wild rice upon the lands, the rivers and the lakes included in the territory ceded by that treaty to the United States are hereby revoked; and all of the said Indians remaining on the lands ceded as aforesaid, are required to remove to their unceded lands” (Supreme Court 2)
This was an attempt to get the band to move from Wisconsin and Michigan to the band’s unceded land in west central Minnesota (Kroseng 1). Although it was a court order to have the Indians removed from their ceded land, it wasn’t exactly effective. “This effort to remove the band to new lands was unsuccessful; there is evidence that the removal order was effectively abandoned by the end of the next year” (Krogseng 2). By saying unsuccessful, implies that the Indians were slowly taken away from the land they were once granted in Wisconsin and Michigan. This shows how unprofessional the removal process actually was.
In 1855 a new treaty was established with the Indians. The U.S. wanted the Indians to be confined to one area instead of having them scattered about in the lands of Michigan and Wisconsin. In the treaty of 1855 it is said that all rights dealing with the land were no longer accepted. In return for the land, the Indians were given more annual payments of goods and money. The bands of Chippewa agreed to “fully and entirely relinquish and convey to the United States, any and all right, title, and interest, of whatsoever nature the same may be, which they now have in, and to any other lands in the territory of Minnesota or elsewhere” (Supreme Court 3). The main idea of this new treaty was to take back all rights that the Chippewa currently held. The treaty of 1855 also put together the Mille Lacs reservation as it is now. “In exchange for the Chippewa’s concessions, the 1885 treaty effectively established the Mille Lacs lake reservation as it stands today” (Krogseng 2)
Through the years the Mille Lacs band of Chippewa used the reservation for all of its needs although Minnesota’s people also inhabited the reservation using the Chippewa’s land to also hunt, fish and gather. “Throughout the next century, poverty stricken Mille Lacs band of Chippewa continued to hunt and fish in the Mille Lacs lake area despite the encroachment on their lands by white settlers and the federal government” (Krogseng 2). Over the years the Chippewa fell victim to many regulations set in by the white man. The large tourism industry around the Mille Lacs lake area caused tension between the in Indians and the other settlers of Minnesota. Although the band had treaty rights to hunt and fish, they were still cited for violating state regulations or even arrested because local courts did not have clear terms of the treaty rights that the Chippewa were given. “In order to evade state scrutiny, the band netted fish at night or in the early morning and hunted deer at night using car headlights” (Krogseng 2).
It did not take long before the Indians wanted more fish and more rights. In the late 1980s, the band decided to try and resolve issues with the Minnesota Department of natural Resources. The issues the Band wanted to work out included the amount of fish they could take and manner in which they harvested the fish. When the negotiations failed in 1990, the Chippewa band filed suit in federal district court claiming that its tribes members were being held back from utilizing their rights which they once gained in the 1855 treaty. The District court broke the case into two parts: whether or not the 1837 treaty still effected them and whether or not the 1850 executive order by President Taylor was unlawful or not. (Krogseng). By 1997 the courts had reached an end on their case with the Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa. “In a five to four decision, the court decided the three issues central to the case in favor of the Mille Lacs band of Chippewa” (Krogseng 3) The courts found that the Rights that the Chippewa used to have were still in effect today. The Court found that the 1850 treaty did not strip the Indians of their rights and that the executive order by President Taylor had no effect on the fishing and hunting rights today (Supreme Court 5). “Justice O’Connor, joined by justices Stevens, Scouter, Breyer, and Ginsburg, delivered the opinion of the court, Chief Justice Rehnquist gave a dissenting opinion: The court held that the 1850 executive order removing The Mille Lacs band from its ceded lands did not terminate its usufructuary rights under the 1837 treaty; The band did not relinquish its usufructuary rights under the 1855 treaty; and the band did not lose its usufructuary rights when Minnesota entered the union in 1858” (Krogeng 4). The only trouble that the court had was trying to determine what to do with the bands rights dealing with hunting and fishing. This was troublesome because the court needed to give the Mille Lacs band the rights and land that they deserved and some how maintain healthy natural resources for white men and the tourism business that took place on the Mille Lacs reservation. The Court then went to prove that the treaties that took place affecting the Chippewa were perfectly legit. The courts said the treaty of 1850 that kicked the Chippewa off the ceded land, was meant to be more of a change of land ownership. Chief justice Rehnquist also stated that the 1855 treaty was a relinquishment of all rights to hunt and fish the land, which the Indians once had before the 1837 treaty.
Today the United States government has very large amount of power over the Chippewa Band. “Supreme Court case law states that Congress abrogate Indian treaty rights, but only if it clearly expresses intent to do so” (Supreme Court 4). This statement brings forth a problem that the United States had with the Executive order President Truman sent out in 1850. The 1837 treaty said that the Indians may hunt and fish on designated lands at the pleasure of the President. By saying “At the Pleasure of the president”, creates a rather large loophole for illegal issues to slip through. The Supreme courts decision in 1997 creates similar loopholes by saying that congress cannot change Indian rights unless they “clearly express their intent to do so”.
Today all of the unclear rules and regulations have made Mille Lacs lake quite hectic in terms of fish limits and netting and spearing rights. The number of pounds that the Chippewa band harvests has fluctuated over the past 20 years. “In 1999 the Chippewa band harvested 42,000 pounds of walleye” (lakes area 2) “However, the allocation agreement between the band and the Minnesota Department of natural Resources fostered by the litigation described in this case increases the bands total yearly intake to 100,000 pounds over three years” (Krogseng 5). In the same litigation, the Indians also wanted to make sure that they were able to use nets and spears to make their annual harvest. Today, the Chippewa use nets and spears to harvest fish from lake Mille Lacs. In 2002 the eight Chippewa bands have the largest harvest amount in the history of the lake. “The eight Chippewa bands have declared 100,000 pounds of walleye for 2002” (lakes area 2). This is what the walleye anglers are so upset about. The Chippewa harvest has a big impact on the amount of walleye in the lake. Because of the dropping number of walleyes, the Minnesota DNR has put special regulations on the lake. The Special regulations consist of a “slot limit”. A slot limit is a size of fish that is legal to take. The slot on lake Mille Lacs walleyes for the 2001 season was 14 to 18 inches. This means that Minnesota anglers are not allowed to take a walleye smaller than 14 inches, and no bigger than 18 inches. The Department of Natural Resources also has a law making it legal to harvest one walleye over 28 inches. This is known as the trophy rule. No one may harvest more than four walleye including the trophy fish (DNR). In the new 2002 fishing season which opens May 11, the slot limit is set for fish between 14 to 16 inches, two inches smaller than the previous slot. In the 2002 season, there will night ban. “The traditional night closure will in effect from 10 p.m. to 6a.m. starting at ten p.m. on may 13th and ending 12:01 a.m. June 10th. No one may fish any species or possess fishing gear on Mille Lacs during the night ban” (Lakes area 1). The DNR has tightened up the slots because the amount of fish harvest this winter was greater than anticipated. The 2002 season is expected to have a harvest of 400,000 pounds of fish between the Chippewa and the other anglers. One fourth of that is set to be harvested by the eight Chippewa bands. The tight slots set by DNR cause many anglers to have to catch and release many fish. Many fish are not able to survive after being hooked. This is known as a hooking mortality. The hooking mortality of this previous year was 79,000 pounds of fish. This number id comparable to the weight of the fish the Indians harvest in one year (Great lakes).
The other big concern is the effect that the tourism industry gets in the area. Many business owners have been afraid of completely losing their businesses. In recent meetings in 2002 with the DNR, resort owners haven’t been very pleased with the steps being taken or how they are being treated. “Resorters argued with each other over various proposed rules, while DNR officials, try as they might to be fair and helpful, came across as only caring about their computer models” (Niskanen 1) Many feel as if the DNR is hiding information from the public. “DNR Commissioner Allen Garber wasn’t much help either, giving incomprehensible explanations and suggesting that people should trust him more, even though it took months of local pressure before he showed any interest in the issue” (Niskanen 1) “Resort owner Terry Mcquoid said the conservative approach was best, with the shortage of bait fish in the lake, the walleyes are biting too good, we can’t take the chance” (Niskanen 1).
Although the treaties of the past are still in affect and taken into consideration today, they are over looked and shrunk down so that they go on unrecognized by legal officials. People need to be informed about how the eight bands of Chippewa came to be today. Once people are informed about the treaties and the changes made over the past two hundred years, they will come to their senses and recognize the truth of why things are the way they are today, and why the fishing regulations that are in place are the right thing to do. “The joy of fishing at Mille Lacs from now on will be the catching, not the keeping” (Niskanen 1).
Works Cited
Department of Natural Resources. 2002 Minnesota Fishing Regulations,
2002.
Krogseng, Kari. “Minnesota v. Mille Lacs band of Chippewa Indians”. Ecology Law Quarterly 27 (2000): 771.
“Minnesota v. Mille Lacs band of Chippewa Indians” Supreme Court Syllabi. Online (24 March 1999)
“Minnesota Petitioners v. Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians” Supreme Court Syllabi. Online (24 March,1999)
“Mille Lacs Lake Regulations for 2002 Season Released.” Lakes Area 14 Feb.2002.
“Mille Lacs Walleye Quota Set; Group Doubts DNR’s Numbers.” Star Tribune 20 Jan. 2002.
Niskanen, Chris “There’s no joy at Minnesota’s Lake Mille Lacs.” Knight Ridder 5 Feb.2002
but glad I did.
