What are treaty rights?
-
a usufructuary right
-
a tribal right not an individual right
-
regulated through tribal codes
-
affirmed by court decisions
Implementation of Treaty Rights & Birth of GLIFWC
In more recent times, where treaty rights have been recognized and affirmed by other governments (whether by litigation, agreement, or statute), tribes continue to assume the responsibility to implement their rights in a way that provides opportunities for tribal members, that assures the continued quantity and quality of natural resources, and that respects and coordinates the exercise of sovereignty and management by other governments that exercise concurrent authority in ceded territories.
The treaties represent a reservation of rights by each tribe individually, but also but all signatory tribes collectively. Each tribe continues to authorize and regulate its members in the exercise of ceded territory rights; however, the rights are also shared intertribally. This means that tribes regularly must address issues related to intertribal resource allocation, coordination of harvest, and natural resource management. Tribes must, individually as well as collectively 1) undertake effective management programs and adopt and enforce regulations consistent with standards reasonable and necessary for conservation, public health, and public safety, 2) remain within the tribal allocation of resources, and 3) engage in intertribal co-management to accomplish effective self-regulation.
To fulfill these obligations, GLIFWC was formed in 1984 through the merger of two already existing entities - the Voigt Intertribal Task Force and the Great Lakes Indian Fisheries Commission. GLIFWC's existence is based on the sovereignty of each of its member tribes and it is an agency of delegated authority from those tribes. It exercises delegated authority and provides expertise in areas of biology, conservation law enforcement, and the development of tribal ordinances which can then be adopted by its member tribes. It has now been in existence for over 25 years, helping to secure the full and successful exercise of treaty rights that provides the needs of tribal members, as well as helping to protect and enhance the natural resources and habitats of the ceded territory.
Treaty Rights Ignored
The treaty rights retained by the tribes were subsequently ignored after the territories of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota assumed statehood and began regulating their natural resources. Those regulations were imposed on tribal members regardless of the reserved rights. Tribal members exercising those rights were often given citations, taken to court, fined, and had their equipment confiscated if harvesting fish or game without a state license.
Treaty Rights Recognition & Affirmation
GLIFWC member tribes' efforts to gain recognition and re-affirmation of their treaty reserved rights have been the subject of numerous court cases over the past 40 years. Courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court in its 1999 Minnesota v. Mille Lacs ruling, have consistently recognized and upheld these rights.
In other instances, there are statutes in place that affirm and reinforce the tribes' treaty rights in a modern-day context. These are not generally the products of litigation but represent a need and/or desire to acknowledge and harmonize the exercise of one sovereign's prerogatives and authorities with those of another sovereign. For example, the 2007 Wisconsin Act 27 is premised on the tribes' sovereign authority to regulate themselves in the exercise of their ceded territory rights. This law recognizes the law enforcement capabilities of GLIFWC's conservation enforcement personnel and extends many of the same statutory safeguards and protections to GLIFWC officers that are afforded to other law enforcement officers in the state.
