Replies Created | Forums | noska

Here is one of the chapters of my thesis some history (my thesis was 100 pages long and i did a 30 min. presentation on it)……

This researcher found many social, political, and economic aspects that surround this issue, and that each group involved in this study is fighting to hold on to. From a social standpoint, the Native Americans believe, the Native Americans have lived on this land long before the white man, and how can the white man say what is moral and what is not?(Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, 1993). The Native Americans remind us that they are involved in various environmental projects, such as testing water levels for toxins, networking with other environmental groups, and laboratory and hatchery testing (Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, 1993). The Indians also believe that their strong cultural ties to mother nature disprove any beliefs that they are intentionally hurting the fish population (Utter, 1993). On a social level, the local fishermen believe that if the Native Americans continue to harvest such quantities, “there will be no fish for the younger generation to enjoy” (Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, 1993). According to a spokesman from the DNR, “The depletion of fish populations is inevitable. Fish populations can be wiped out from tribal fishing pressure. This is especially evident in small lakes where there may be only one suitable spot for spawning” (Kosova, 1990). The Department of Natural Resources believes that there must be a compromise worked out between these two groups, or the social tension will continue to rise, and may eventually boil over, as was experienced in Wisconsin.

Politically, the Native Americans feel that they are merely exercising the rights reserved by them in the treaties they signed with the United States, and in the past, the courts have ruled in their favor (Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, 1994). However, the sportsfishermen feel that Native Americans should have no special privileges because they are still considered citizens of the United States (Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, 1993). Again, the DNR suggests a compromise between both groups.

Economically, the Native Americans have spent millions attempting to address the declining fish population. The Chippewa alone have spent thousands of dollars setting up research training facilities where full-time research and aquatic biologists are trained. They have also set up laboratories and hatcheries solely for monitoring fish populations in harvested areas (US Department of Interior, 1991). Conversely, resort owners are afraid that the Native Americans are devastating the population to the point of no return (Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, 1994). As a result, resort owners say, tourism will decline, putting many resorts out of business. Many small towns rely on the business generated by the sportsfishing industry (Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, 1993). In fact, sportsfishing contributes fifteen billion dollars each year to local and state economies nationwide (Great Lakes Organization, 1998). Economically, the DNR is reacting to the declining populations by raising license fees to allocate more funding toward restoration programs. The DNR is also reducing limit sizes to prevent further population loss.

By examining the three ideologies manifested through recent debates, this researcher attempted to suggest a compromise acceptable to all. The facts have shown that the Native Americans and the sportsfishing industry must work with the DNR to solve this problem together. All sides must make sure that the resource is protected for the future generations.

Related Literature

History:
“One hundred sixty-one years ago, leaders of the Mille Lacs band of Chippewa ventured to the bluffs of Fort Snelling, there they signed the Treaty of 1837, giving the United States deed to their land. In exchange, they were granted hunting, fishing, and gathering rights to sustain their way of life” (Shelby, 1999).

Since the early nineteen-sixties, Indian bands in Minnesota have expressed a renewed interest in participating in hunting, fishing and food gathering activities. Native Americans believe that these rights were reserved for them in treaties with the U. S. government during the last century. Some of this interest stems from attempts to revitalize cultural traditions that had been suppressed for decades. There is a long over-due recognition by the larger society that human rights and civil liberties are not being uniformly extended to all members of society (Penney, 1999).

“Since 1964, indigenous governmental powers have increased and many Indigenous Nations have begun to recover powers and authorities once eroded by various state and federal actions” (Pevar, 1992). “As a result, indigenous governments have begun to compete directly with state and federal governments for control over lands, hunting, fishing, taxation, social welfare, and commerce” (Center for World Indigenous Studies, 1988). States and the federal governments say they have the right to exercise powers over citizens within their boundaries, including those living inside Indian reservations, and to exercise power over all matters (Penney, 1999). In an attempt to have their rights recognized and to exercise many of their rights, indigenous people have increasingly turned to the courts (Penney, 1999). “The Supreme Court has consistently followed the general principle that the U.S. has received indigenous nations into its protection and that tribes are considered self-governing sovereign entities” (Penney, 1999). Based upon this status as sovereign nations, Indigenous Nations claim the right to exercise power over their lands and resources and people within their boundaries (Penney, 1999).

State courts and the Supreme Court have frequently affirmed treaty rights as they pertain to hunting and fishing on reservations and ceded territories (Penney, 1999). Since 1887, indigenous Americans have won most major cases establishing treaty fishing and water rights (Nyquist, 1991). For example, in 1962, the Menominee Nation contested their right to hunt on their reservation out of the normal Wisconsin season and in 1968, the Supreme Court affirmed their treaty rights relating to hunting (Satz, 1991). In 1974, Federal Judge George Boldt ruled that Treaty fishermen in the Pacific Northwest were entitled to fifty percent of the harvestable salmon and steelhead (Gaffney, 1986). “Reactions in the non-Indian community to increasing indigenous power have included anger and fear that has been manifested by acts of physical confrontation, costly court battles and overt acts of racism against indigenous Americans” (Satz, 1991).

Sovereignty:
Sovereignty means the right to govern oneself. Before the arrival of European Americans, the Natives “conducted their own affairs and were dependent upon no other source of power to uphold their acts of government” (Canby, 1988). At first, Colonial Americans allowed the Natives to regulate their own affairs. As time went on, the settlers believed that Native Americans “lacked an organized government or laws” (Canby, 1988). The issue of tribal sovereignty, therefore, is central to any discussion of on- or off-reservation harvesting rights (Knox, 1993). To indigenous Americans, government speaks a language, which reflects the ways of a people. “Indigenous tribal laws and government cannot be separated from the environment in which it developed and recognizes much of the traditional ways of its people” (Strickland 1993). “Recognition of treaty rights is important to indigenous Nations as an affirmation of their status as a distinct people” (Knox 1993).

Culture:
“People engaged in disputes bring with them their own cultural world views” (Penney, 1999). Differences in world view make it difficult for parties to find the shared experiences necessary to reach common ground. Language, history, the way people acquire and process information, and social motivations can vary between different cultures (Penney, 1999). The dispute over treaty rights is about distribution of a resource that is shared by everyone (Penney, 1999). While this is not a cultural dispute, finding the solution is hard to make because of different world views (Penney, 1999).

Conflicting Management Models:
One of the major problems throughout the history of this case is the difference between the management models offered by the various groups in this dispute. Indigenous American resource management models are quite different from those of non-Indians. “The Minnesota DNR bases its management decisions on short-term, mixed-discipline, quantitative studies, much the way our academic systems are set up. Indigenous peoples base their decisions on long-term, holistic, ecological knowledge that has been passed down through generations ” (Penney, 1999) Native Americans believe that their knowledge surpasses the scientific and social knowledge of non-indigenous America, and are frustrated when their knowledge is dismissed by non-Indians as being un-proven (Penney, 1999). Further, the DNR primarily manages for populations subject to recreational hunting and fishing, while the Native Americans use a holistic approach focusing on the economy (Penney, 1999). Co-management has been suggested as a management model that can bridge the gap between cultural perspectives. Co-management means that indigenous Americans and state and federal resource management agencies share equally in management decisions and combine traditional indigenous knowledge with modern techniques (Penney, 1999).

DNR (Department of Natural Resources):

The DNR’s opinion is hard to come by regarding this controversial issue. The DNR has their opinion, however, they seem to be avoiding any media attention at this point in the decision process. This researcher was able to obtain a brief statement made by the DNR pertaining to tribal fishing rights. “The Department of Natural Resources wants the public to know that, it is our top priority is to protect the long-term health of Minnesota’s natural resources for you and future generations”(Minnesota DNR, 1994). The DNR adds, “Your interests are being vigorously defended by the Attorney General’s Office, which has allocated an unprecedented number of attorneys and dollars to this case” (Minnesota DNR, 1994). DNR officials claim that, “the State has and will continue to raise applicable legal defenses to prevent bands from exercising interim harvest rights” (Minnesota DNR, 1994). “However, if ordered by the court, the State, even though it disapproves, must allow treaty harvest if conservation and public safety issues are adequately addressed” (Minnesota DNR, 1994). Currently, the Mille Lacs and other bands are not exercising their interim harvest rights in the 1837 treaty. According to the DNR, that could change at any time (Minnesota DNR, 1994).

Native Americans:

Hunting and fishing traditions are intricate parts of treaty rights because of their cultural significance. These traditions were passed down despite what the non-Indian community thought of them. Native Americans were prevented from participating in their traditions for many years, but the traditions were still passed along. They are an essential component of their culture, not just an easy way to get fish. Participating in tradition enhances one’s awareness of their identity and pride (Penney, 1999).

Because of the poor land that reservations are on, Native Americans cannot sustain economies” (Penney, 1999). “Traditional economic development, as well as subsistence, for Indigenous people is now dependent upon the ability to harvest resources on the ceded lands that surround their reservations” (Penney, 1999). “For many indigenous peoples, harvesting wild game really can make the difference between starvation and sustenance for their families” (LaDuke, 1995). “Despite pressures by non-Indian America, many indigenous Nations prefer to maintain traditional economic systems that are intertwined with their values and culture” (LaDuke, 1995). For the Ojibwe of the Great Lakes Region, a fishing tradition goes back many generations. The Mille Lacs band of the Ojibwe is currently fighting in court for the right to maintain its traditional economic system. “Treaty rights to harvest resources and self-determination are part of a strong, traditional, spiritual values system which will not be relinquished by the Band at any cost” (Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, 1993).

PERM (Proper Economic Resource Management) Sportsmen’s Group:

Proper Economic Resource Management, otherwise known as PERM, has been given the opportunity by the courts to give their opinion regarding tribal fishing rights. PERM is a non-profit, tax-exempt conservation/ sportsfishermen’s club dedicated to balanced solutions to natural resource management issues. According to its spokesperson, former Minnesota Vikings head coach Bud Grant, “PERM believes that allowing special privileges, for any group, to our public natural resources is unconstitutional” (PERM, 1999). Allowing a non-public entity, in which the public has no voice, management authority, and control over publicly owned fish and game is not sound conservation policy (PERM, 1999). Grant explains that, “if the tribes’ claims for hunting, fishing and gathering unregulated by State law are successful, there will be unaccountability in management, a decline in fish and game, and great economic harm to the area” (PERM, 1999). PERM claims that they do not promote the breaking of the 1837 treaty. They say that in fact, they are “fighting to honor it” (PERM, 1999). PERM thinks that the treaty was only temporary in nature, and that through other treaties and Minnesota’s statehood, these temporary privileges were in fact honored (PERM, 1999). PERM believes that the Treaty of 1855 created a temporary reservation and through payments by the U.S. government, the Chippewa gave up any and all rights to the off-reservation lands (PERM, 1999).

To analyze PERM’s standpoint, this researcher will summarize some of the articles presented by PERM members, and their spokesperson Bud Grant. The Native Americans have claimed that the court must view the treaties as the Native people would have viewed them hundreds of years ago. Grant says, that there is much evidence to suggest that the Mille Lacs Band has understood, accepted, and agreed that hunting, fishing and has to follow state regulation codes (PERM, 1999). In court the Mille Lacs Band provided no evidence of any kind to the contrary (PERM, 1999). “In the last 150 years, Mille Lacs Band members, leaders, and advocates have never complained about abiding by State conservation codes off the reservation, until now” (PERM, 1999).

PERM is concerned about the numbers of fish that the Native American’s will take from the various lakes and rivers. The Native Americans claim that they will only take what is necessary, PERM disagrees. PERM’s leaders say, “Band leaders openly state that they intend to take tens of thousands of fish a year from public waters to sell commercially, as well as hunt and gather other resources outside of State conservation regulations for commercial sale” (PERM, 1999). PERM claims that the interest of the nation as a whole is not what is at stake. PERM members explain that commercial fishing operates in the same way that the Mille Lacs Band casinos do. Large corporate interests and a few tribal officials will be the only ones who benefit, while Band members will receive little, or no, monetary gains (PERM, 1999).

The public often claims that this is merely a battle over a few fish, again, PERM disagrees. Grant says, “If the Bands’ claims are allowed to prevail in court, the effect would be devastating to the natural resources, sport hunting and fishing, property rights, property values, local and State economies, and a way of life that has flourished in the area for over one hundred years” (PERM, 1999). So this battle over access to the State’s public resources is not just a fight over a few fish, as the media has portrayed it to be (PERM, 1999). PERM explains that these land and resource claims are quite possibly the biggest challenge the state of Minnesota has ever faced (PERM, 1999).

PERM claims that equality is the essence of their argument. Grant says, no matter what the race, Minnesota’s citizens should have equal access to the State’s natural resources (PERM, 1999). State conservation codes currently apply to all citizens equally (PERM, 1999). People living inside the same state should have the same rights (PERM, 1999).

Society often believes that racial issues are at the heart of PERM’s argument. PERM members argue that, “while we cannot vouch for the motivations of all who oppose the treaty claims, neither racism nor ignorance motivates our opposition nor that of most Minnesotans who support us”(PERM, 1999). Instead of using the resource in traditional ways, PERM fears that large corporations will come in and ruin the resource (PERM, 1999).

To summarize the various articles that PERM has presented me with, this researcher would like to offer the thoughts of Lana Marcussen, a PERM leader. Marcussen says,
“This is not just an Indian issue. It is an issue about what this country is and is going to be for the 21st century. Are we going to be one people or many peoples with different rights depending on the national government’s classifications? Can we allow the national government to have the power to segregate the people without granting a special classification to every identifiable ethnic group? Or must it mean that a citizen is a citizen is a citizen? Do we want limited constitutional government to protect our rights or do we want the national government to own all of the resources and control every aspect of the economy? Without resolving the Indian policy of the national government we can never resolve what’s wrong. Indians must gain their constitutional rights” (PERM, 1999).

CERA (Citizens Equal Rights Alliance) Landowner’s/ Sportsfishermen’s Group

CERA is an advocacy group dedicated to promoting equal protection of the law for all citizens of the United States (CERA, 1999). The group’s mission is “to change federal Indian policy so that this nation of many cultures may be one people living under one system of laws”(CERA, 1999). CERA claims that their intent is to present the facts in such a way that reasonable men and women who care about life, liberty, and happiness in America will take action. CERA wants the American public to have their voices heard (CERA, 1999). The chorus which proclaims that America really is “one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all!” (CERA, 1999).

Darrel Smith provides the framework for the opinion’s of CERA. Smith says,

“Throughout its relatively short history, the United States has been known as the melting pot because its citizens come from so many different cultures. In fact, many believe that one of the greatest attributes of America is the fact that people from so many diverse cultures have come together to live in a constitutional republic”(CERA, 1999).

CERA provides numerous articles from their members describing their belief system regarding tribal fishing rights. First, an examination of Native American understanding is at the heart of CERA’s standpoint. Joe Fellegy, a CERA member claims that “throughout the trial, no body of evidence, not a single document, was introduced to indicate that the Mille Lacs Band understood it retained fishing, hunting, and gathering rights in the 12-county area ceded to the United States in the Treaty of 1837”(Fellegy, 1999). Fellegy explains that treaty-making was not new to the Ojibwe at this time. Fellegy explains, “Mille Lacs Band leaders had been traveling to the Indian agency at Fort Snelling to transact business for 18 years”(Fellegy, 1999). Thousands of people were present at the 1837 Treaty signing, including various Ojibwe Band members. Examples include: Ojibwe, Dakota, and other Indians, government agents, missionaries, traders, trappers, and others (Fellegy, 1999). Many of the different Band members were multilingual. Fellegy concludes by stating,
“the Band’s own history book, Against the tide of American History: The Story of the Mille Lacs Anishinabe, published in 1985, highlighted no 1837 Treaty rights cause in the Mille Lacs Band because there were none. Contrary to wishful thinking and blind “rights” advocacy, there has been no historic fight or struggle by the Mille Lacs Band for 1837 treaty rights. It is purely a political “cause” of the 1980s and 1990s, orchestrated and promoted by interests having little or nothing to do with the heart, soul, and history of the Mille Lacs Band” (Fellegy, 1999).

This researcher must then ask, why is this such an issue in the present? Fellegy offers this explanation,
“the Mille Lacs Band members have been brainwashed about treaty rights and insulated from their own history in an atmosphere where freedoms of the press, speech, and political discussion are discouraged, where the free flow of information is nonexistent Consequently, some Mille Lacs Ojibwe who previously had no interest in fishing, hunting, and gathering outside of state regulation in the off-reservation ceded territory are now waiting in line to “exercise” rights” (Fellegy, 1999).

CERA believes that the Native Americans are going to completely destroy fish populations while exercising their rights if they win the case. Fellegy explains, “this year, for the first time, the Chippewa Bands indicated their intent to take 100 percent of the safe harvest for walleye on a number of lakes in Vilas, Oneida, Florence, Chippewa, Iron, Price, Rusk and Eau Claire counties” (Fellegy, 1999). Chippewa declarations of 100 percent would result in zero bag limits for sport anglers in those waters (Fellegy, 1999).

DNR secretary George Meyer explains that this is not acceptable because it could severely hurt tourism and destroy local businesses (CERA, 1999) Meyer said, “Under both the spirit and the letter of the federal court decision, the resource was to be shared between Indian and non-Indian fishers” (CERA, 1999). Fellegy then explains what has happened at Red Lake to the fish populations through tribal netting and spearing.
“There is only one commercial fishery for walleyes in the United States, that is at Red Lake, Minnesota, a closed reservation with full tribal management of an Indian fishing cooperative. No sport fishing or resort industry exists there, where tribal elders now warn of “collapse” due to over-fishing. Imagine nets and commercial fishing at Mille Lacs, Minnesota’s largest sport fishery” (Fellegy, 1999).

CERA has a program headed by PERM spokesperson Bud Grant called “Save Minnesota,” that is intended to show what they feel are the horrible consequences that stem from tribal fishing rights. What does “Save Minnesota” mean? Grant explains,
“Save Minnesota is not an empty slogan. Instead, it is an urgent cry for help from me, and thousands of others who have taken on the enormous job of trying to protect the rights and resources of all Minnesotans. Save Minnesota is not an overstated slogan. We really are in danger of losing our rights in the whole northern two thirds of our state. We have to save our natural resources, save the sports of hunting and fishing, save the tourism industry, save taxes, and save property rights and values. I just don’t believe it’s right for one group of Americans to have rights others don’t have any more than it would be right for one team to play football by different rules from the other. I can’t believe that’s what our founding fathers had in mind” (Grant, 1999).

The president of MAPP (Mille Lacs Annishinabe People’s Part) Vincent Hill presented his arguments against these treaty rights. Hill provides three reasons why he believes that the Native American’s should not prevail.
First, “I do not see the Mille Lacs Ojibwe tribal government as having the financial wherewithal, nor the technical expertise and manpower, to regulate and manage a natural resource code for its own band members, and possibly to include non-band members, within the vast 1837 ceded territory. The state’s enforcement of conservation regulations is more than sufficient as it is. Second, casino profits are providing millions of dollars being used to finance the Mille Lacs tribal government’s hunting and fishing lawsuit against the State of Minnesota, area counties, and landowners. Mille Lacs tribal members have not been allowed to vote, or even been asked, how gambling proceeds should be utilized. In other words, Mille Lacs tribal members have not given their consent to finance this expensive treaty lawsuit, which the band brought against the State. There is every indication that tribal members would disapprove such use of casino gambling profits because it robs them of their fair share of casino gambling profits. Third, Mille Lacs’ urban tribal members do not appear to care one way or the other what will be the final outcome of this expensive and protracted court battle over fish and game” (Hill, 1999).

To summarize the thoughts of CERA, Mark Rotz offers their bottom line opinion. Rotz states,
“We want to uphold the treaties made between Indians and the federal government. We believe these lawsuits are an attempt to break the treaties by the Indian governments. The dispute is over interpretation and understanding of the treaties. The Indians believe that the treaties guaranteed them a permanent right to hunt, fish, and gather without regard for state conservation laws. We believe that the treaties provided them with a temporary privilege to hunt, fish and gather and that the privilege has been lawfully and morally ended. We believe Indians should continue to have the right to hunt and fish, let’s make sure our conservation laws protect the public safety and conserve the wildlife for all citizens equally, and that they apply to all citizens equally” (Rotz, 1999).

Forum Replies Created