Mille Lacs Lake Case Study

For decades, there has been tension between Native American fishermen and non-native fishermen over the fishing rights on Mille Lacs Lake. This tension has increased, particularly because of the sustainability and quality of Mille Lacs Lake, and the Supreme Court’s ruling in Minnesota against Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians. The Court claimed that the Chippewa Indians retained their rights to hunt and fish on ceded lands as established by the 1837 Treaty of St. Peters. Usufruct rights are rights of enjoyment to another’s property allowing the holder to generate income from the property without obtaining ownership. This right to hunt and fish on ceded lands is further protected from state regulation by the 1837 Treaty of St. Peters. The

Mille Lacs filed its suit on August 13, 1990, and Fond du Lac filed its suit on September 30, 1992. The Fond du Lac lawsuit also involved the tribe’s 1854 Treaty claims. These two lawsuits traveled parallel paths through the federal courts, having been assigned to different judges; however, they were eventually consolidated on certain issues. Both sought a judgment declaring that the 1837s territory rights continued to exist, defining the nature and scope of the rights, and defining the permissible scope, if any, of state regulation of the treaty harvest. They also sought a court order prohibiting enforcement of state fish and game laws against band members, except as specified by the court. In terms of timing, the Mille Lacs case proceeded through the court first and drew most public attention. In 1993, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals allowed nine Minnesota counties and six individuals to join in the case against the Band. In 1993, after many months of negotiations, an attempted effort to resolve the Mille Lacs case through an out-of-court settlement failed. The proposed agreement was approved by the Mille Lacs Band, but was rejected by the State

The court ruled that if the bands properly enact these regulations into tribal law and effectively enforce them, state laws do not apply. It also ruled that an allocation of natural resources between treaty and non-treaty harvests was unnecessary at the time. Judge Davis also approved a dispute resolution process agreed to by the bands and state. This process called for the establishment of two committees, one for fishery issues and the other for wildlife and wild plant issues. These committees would be the primary cooperative management bodies where information would be exchanged, possible regulatory changes would be discussed, and issues would be