(00:00:00) Good morning. Welcome to midday on Minnesota Public Radio. I'm Gary eichten. Glad you could join us. Well big news today. The US Supreme Court has ruled that 8 bands of Chippewa have the legal right to hunt and fish in the Lake Mille Lacs area free of Minnesota state regulation the narrow 524 Court decision brings to an end a long and frequently bitter battle over resources in East Central Minnesota during this first hour of. Midday. We're going to take a closer look at the decision and talk with some of the people who've been involved in this dispute over the years former deputy counsel in the Minnesota State Attorney. General's office. Scott. Strand will be joining us. He's worked on this case since 1992 Elizabeth's to Wiki who's been covering this case. She'll be with us through the hour and we invite you to join. Our conversation as well as we work through the decision what it means get some reaction to the decision. If you'd like to join our conversation, give us a call. Our Twin City area number is 6512276 thousand 6512276 thousand if you're calling from outside the Twin Cities, you can reach us toll-free and that number is 1-800-222-8477. 6001 802 for to 288 283. We courted incision on Indian treaty fishing and hunting rights in the state of Minnesota is in and the treaty rights have been upheld by the Supreme Court. Now Minnesota Public Radio is legal Affairs reporter Elizabeth's to Wiki is here to get us started Elizabeth has been tracking this case and you were out in Washington for the actual oral arguments before The Supreme Court, right Elizabeth. That's right. I have covered those case from its US District Court level up to the US Supreme Court. One thing to make clear is that this ruling says Is that the bands of Ojibwe have the right to hunt and fish off the reservation free from State regulation. Now, the ruling was a split decision five justices found in favor of the of the tribe and for found in favor of the state the votes largely came down to party lines in the sense that those at found in favor of the tribe Justice souter Stevens Ginsburg and Breyer looked at more of kind of the liberal and of the court and those against chief justice rehnquist Scalia Kennedy and Thomas looked at more of the conservative types the wild card in this was Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, she had written the opinion now as as you had mentioned this case began in 1990 when the Mille Lacs band of Ojibwe sued the state saying that it had retained the rights to hunt and fish off-reservation free from State regulation the federal government and seven other Chippewa bands in Minnesota and Wisconsin Joy. the lawsuit as well as nine counties and eight private landowners who intervened on the state side now for some reaction Mark Sloan mm who was the attorney for the band and who had argued the case from the US District Court level all the way to the US Supreme Court says, he's (00:03:16) relieved the hunting and fishing rights that were at stake in the case or very important to the Chippewa not just the Mille Lacs band, but the Fond du Lac band and Troy band and Kure and bad River redcliffe left the flambeaux mo Lake, but all of those bands have members who have been exercising these rights on some in Wisconsin longer than others and their part of their their part of their way of life their part of their tradition part of their culture and there was there was just so much at stake for them that I'm just relieved (00:04:00) now as Mark Sloan. Mm had just said this ruling has probably the potential for some to affect tribes throughout the country some Indian law experts had said that the Court's decision today could affect the security of other Indian treaty rights and the Ojibwe were supported. In fact in front of the court briefs by the National Congress of American Indians, the Affiliated tribes of Northwest Indians and 32 individual tribes who also took an interest in this case. Now, if you'll recall just kind of stepping back a little bit there were several main arguments that the state put forth as reasons why the Ojibwe did not retain its rights to hunt and fish off its reservation. The main one was that they argued before the US Supreme Court was a presidential order and the idea that when Minnesota became a state that extinguish the tribes rights to hunt and fish off the reservation. And now in response to that Justice O'Connor said that the president's order requiring. The Ojibwe is removal from the land was not authorized by federal law and that other parts having to do with the president presidential order including the hunting and fishing rights could not stand separately. She had also said that the Indian treaty rights can be revoked only when Congress clearly states that there's an intent to do so and that any legislation admitting Minnesota into the Union did not make any mention of Indian treaty rights. So in writing for The Descent chief justice rehnquist said Taylor's order ending the chippewas treaty privileges was valid. And in that there is simply no principled reason to invalidate the 150 year old executive order again, it was the split position five justices found in favor of the tribe and for found in favor of the state, okay? Elizabeth if you would stay with us through the our and add your two cents worth as we work our way through the decision joining us now is Scott strand a former deputy counsel in the Minnesota State Attorney General's office morning, (00:06:11) sir. Good morning. Are (00:06:13) you surprised at the this Court ruling now the 5242 session that it turned out the way it did. (00:06:18) Well, I can't say that. I'm surprised obviously we are disappointed. (00:06:22) What what do you think in your mind this decision turn on when the when the court was working its way of trying to decide balance these competing viewpoints. (00:06:35) Well reading through the opinions this morning. I think the the critical issue was just whether the court wanted to do something that would have a fairly substantial impact on the way Indian laws developed over the last 20 years. I think in the end they decided that they did not want to make any changes or at least a majority of the Court did and that's why we end up with a ruling which I His relatively narrow probably will not have a lot of impact around the country the way that a decision in the state's favor might (00:07:05) have sometimes with these Supreme Court rulings the ruling comes down and it almost raises as many questions as it answers is this one of those kinds of decisions or is this a fairly clear-cut deal now and there really are no other legal questions to be (00:07:22) solved? Well, it resolves the the fundamental issues as to whether these rights continue in force. I think pretty definitively the court really the court majority really accepted what the eighth circuit previously Done Right Down the Line in the future. There will likely be disputes but they will be disputes over how to implement the terms of the order. It won't be over the whether the rights exist fundamentally. (00:07:48) There has been some confusion in the state of Minnesota and elsewhere about the definition of Indian sovereignty. Does this snow help clarify that issue and Does it provide us with some guidance so that people have a better understanding if they don't have a good understanding now of Indian sovereignty in (00:08:08) America? Well, I think it me clarify things a little bit. I think not a lot. I think the court has reaffirmed number of doctrines that it has articulated before that when we're looking at treaties statutes executive orders involving the Indian tribes that there is a presumption that the that the Indian understanding of those documents is going to Prevail which has been a part of the recognition of tribal sovereignty that was reaffirmed. I think that there is some important language in the opinion about State sovereignty and the notion that state sovereignty is not threatened by the exercise of Indian tribal rights. Ultimately that was a fundamental part of the argument in the case. And I think they've again clarified their position their have they read Run the lines between tribal and state governments in a fundamentally new way. I don't think (00:09:03) so in 1993. There was a bill before the legislature which would have ratified an agreement between the state and the Chippewa on on the regulation of Natural Resources in the area and that bill ultimately was blocked is what's going to be allowed now significantly different than what would have been allowed under that agreement. (00:09:28) Well, there will be significant differences. What happens now with the Supreme Court decision is that we go back to judge Davis has order at the district court level and what will happen each year is that the bands will be able to decide on their own how much of what we call the harvestable surplus of the different resources in the area. They're going to want to take for themselves up to a level of 50% ultimately and it will be up to the state at whatever level. Always tribal treaty Harvest levels are set to change its rules and regulations to accommodate that harvest in Lake Mille Lacs. For example under the 93 settlement. The percentages were going to be under 5% of the harvestable Surplus under judge Davis has order now, it will be it will start it at Double that and have the potential to go all the way up to 50% (00:10:22) We're talking this hour with Scott strand former deputy counsel in the Minnesota State Attorney General's office. He's been working on this treaty rights case since 1992. Minnesota Public Radio is legal Affairs correspondent Elizabeth sticky is with us. If you just tuned in the US Supreme Court this morning handed down a decision in the treaty rights case involving the central Minnesota Lake Mille Lacs and the rest 5 24524 the Court ruled that 8 bands of Chippewa Indians may continue to hunt and fish on 13 million Acres of public land in, Minnesota. Without State regulation needless to say the ruling raises lots of questions. And so we thought this first hour of our midday program, we would work our way through some of those questions also give you an opportunity to ask some questions. If you'd like to join our conversation. Give us a call. Our Twin City area number is 6512276 thousand 6512276 thousand outside the Twin Cities one eight hundred two, four two two eight two eight Scott strand. This is Elizabeth's to Wiki were you surprised at all that the decision came down in this manner in the sense that there seemed to be a sense that when the arguments happen before the US Supreme Court that the state looked like it had a pretty good case just from what the justices were asking and kind of their comments seem to be more supportive of the state than for the tribe. (00:11:53) Well, I think that I think is most surprising about that is Is that once the Supreme Court decides to take a case like this? It's unusual that they're going to end up just affirming the decision below. Typically they take cases in order to make new law or clarify important principles. And really this doesn't do a lot of that. I've always thought it was a mistake to try to read too much into how an oral argument goes in any court because that's not tunity for the judges to ask questions. It's not a very reliable guide to where they're going to come out in the (00:12:26) end Jim's on the line for Madonna with a question Jim. Go ahead Place. (00:12:31) Good morning. If mr. Strands position is that this doesn't fundamentally change the way that the courts are looking at Indian rights. In other words. They've been looking at things this way all along what justification to the state have for pursuing this for six years and how much of our money that they spent. Well, it wasn't the state that pursued this it was the band's that sued in the state was under an obligation as it always is to defend the constitutionality of its own rules and regulations. So it was the band's that brought the challenge. All the state can do is either try to settle a dispute like that or if a settlement is not in order is to try to defend the laws that have been duly enacted by our representatives and that's what the state was (00:13:15) doing. You did appeal though, right the state did appeal these (00:13:17) cases we did and I think that's a that's typically what happens in almost any kind of case involving constitutional issues. You have to remember that ultimately. This is a constitutional case. I mean, this was a lawsuit brought by the band's saying that a number of State statutes a number of state regulations were unconstitutional as being preempted by federal treaty law. And so I think it's important to understand that it is the obligation of the state to try to defend the Integrity of the laws that are Representatives put into (00:13:49) effect and any guesstimate Scott as to how much this the appeals cost the (00:13:54) state. Well the appeals cost relatively little what's expensive in litigation. Like this is the is the expert Witnesses and putting the case together for trial and there's no question that you know millions of dollars were spent at that phase of the litigation. The Appellate process is relatively inexpensive because the record is already been established and it's just a matter of lawyers making arguments. So that that really did not add much to the financial burden of this (00:14:21) litigation. I'm wondering a question for both of you Elizabeth and Scott do we know are there other? Treaty claims lurking in 19th century treaties that would affect Minnesota like this one or is this kind of a case in unto itself? In other words? Can we expect further cases of this nature in Minnesota? (00:14:47) Well, there's a case Gary that's that spending involving the What's called the 1854 ceded territory. This is a region covering most of Northeast Minnesota where the treaty rights were to hunt and fish were established some time ago and the case has been on hold pending the outcome of this litigation to decide what the remedy is going to be that case. I'll now move into our into our remedy phase and there will be there may be some changes in the in the management of Natural Resources up in that part of the state. We've known about that for a long time. There was a there was a settlement of that dispute 11 years ago that has been enforced. Some period of time I think it's a legitimate question whether that settlement is going to stay in force. Are there other unknown claims that are out there. I think at this point that's unlikely. I think we have a pretty good sense of what kind of claims could legitimately be brought and again given the fact that the court didn't didn't radically change the principles that have been out there for a while. I don't expect any brand new litigation. (00:15:57) Okay, Patrick your question, please (00:15:59) I have two questions. The first one is working the person get a copy of the treaty to actually see what's in it. (00:16:05) The treaty or the Supreme Court (00:16:08) ruling the actual treaty itself. (00:16:11) Well, I'm pretty sure that you probably can get a copy of the treaty from the Attorney General's office. (00:16:19) Okay, exactly. Why is it it seems that were picked in some parts of the treaty to enforce but not others we're giving them the rights to hunt and fish but for example, we used to have not allow him to leave the reservation. We used to not sell guns to the Indians things that nature. Well, we try to answer that did the the treaties are not between the state and the Indian tribes. They're actually documents and agreements between the the tribes and the federal government. So ultimately it is a in terms of some of the provisions of these treaties. It's ultimately up to the federal government to decide whether and to what extent it's going to enforce any of those terms some of the kinds of things that you're talking about were changed by by later enactments either later treaties or later statutes governing the conduct of Indians on the reservations. This is really the question of whether or not bad agreement between the federal government and the tribes preempted the state law and so it's a little bit different issue in terms of enforcement of those treaty rights. And the issue in this case was obviously about the hunting and fishing Provisions. (00:17:26) How does this ruling or does this ruling affect people who own land on the contested in the contested area (00:17:35) non-indians? It has no effect on the on the ownership or the title to any lands in the area. I think the impact of the potential impact on landowners in the area has to do primarily with possible economic impacts, if the for example the bands were to significantly step up the the allocation of fish in Lake Mille Lacs that they want for treaty Harvest and that were to have a dramatic impact on the state's fishing seasons and limits on that on that water that's going to have an impact on the tourism industry in that area and ultimately have an effect on land values in that area, but it doesn't affect title to land precisely really in any (00:18:18) way what have we heard so far about the band's intentions in terms of the number of fish. They plan to take out a Lake Mille Lacs and the kind of hunting practices, they'll use and so on do we have any any broad idea of that so far? (00:18:34) Well we do for the next five years because The the order of the judge Davis at the district court level issued before has a essentially a series of applications that will be in effect for the next five year period And I think we've that order has been in effect for a past season and so we have a little bit of an indication as to how it's going to work in practice. The real unknown is what happens after that five year period That's supposed to be a period of time where the band's decide what they need or what they want in terms of of a share of the fishing resources. And that's the wild card in (00:19:12) this Michael your question, (00:19:14) please yes. I was wondering what is the precedent for the president being able to kind of unilaterally nullify a treaty that was signed between the Indian bands and the federal government? Well, the president doesn't have any inherent authority to nullify a treaty between the bands and the federal government but this particular treaty said that these hunting and fishing rights would only would only exist during the pleasure of the president. That's the exact language from the treaty. And so the state's argument throughout was during the pleasure of the president meant that the president could decide whether or not those rights were going to continue in force. And in fact in this case expressly decided that they would not in 1850. So it's not a general principle. But under this particular treaty certainly it was our position that the president did have that Authority what the court decided today was that the president did not have the legal Authority Under that language to issue the order that he did and therefore the rights survive the (00:20:14) order during the lower court cases. There was a lot of talk about what what people what the Indians in this case could understand in terms of the negotiations in the language of music. Did any of that play a part in today's ruling best we can tell or was it purely a more more based on Zachary Taylor's powers or lack (00:20:35) thereof. Well, there's a lot of discussion in the in the majority opinion in Justice O'Connor's opinion about that historical record. And I think it was used to support the the fundamental conclusion, which was at the president didn't have the authority So It ultimately I don't think the opinion absolutely rests on that historical record, but it's interesting that the court went into that record in enough detail that I think the potential impact of this ruling on other disputes around the country will be will be limited because you can certainly make an argument that this case is is largely going to be limited to the particular facts (00:21:14) here Mark Ronson's with us now. He is the chairman of perm an organization proper proper economic resource management and joins us from Elk River. Good morning, sir. (00:21:26) Morning, Gary (00:21:27) I would imagine you're disappointed in today's decision. (00:21:29) Yeah, we certainly are. It's been a been a long protracted Affair and we had hoped for a better conclusion. But nonetheless we're very very proud of the effort. We've done in the landowners in the litigation. But certainly we came up a little (00:21:46) short. Do you wish in retrospect that you would have just gotten behind that 1993 legislative agreement between the state and the bands and and not push this in the (00:21:57) courts. I think not for a couple of reasons. There is some disagreement over, you know, the effects of that settlement would have had in some of the specifics of the terms but that putting that aside I think most of our supporters wanted to ultimately find out whether or not this was right or wrong. This was the only way to find that out for sure and we you know felt committed to seeing this. Through to the end we chose, you know to stand up for what we believe in in the legal process rather than some of the things we've seen happen in our neighboring states, but you know, I think most of us are like I said at the beginning proud of what we've done to try to resolve this issue and and I don't think there's regrets at least none that I have talked to yet. Did you get a fair Shake in the courts? Well, I think there's some question as to that on it. Some of the lower court levels. I certainly feel that the Supreme Court it was a obviously a very close deal here. I think I don't know how common it is to have two dissenting opinions, but the 54 margin with with two dissenting opinions, I think indicates that it was certainly a closely debated and well thought opinion by the court and you know, I guess while we disagree with that we're certainly committed to To following the law and living within the Court ruling. So you think everybody will (00:23:31) accept this ruling now, as you know, there's been a lot of concern that one way or the other we were going to end up with bad feelings protests in the rest. (00:23:43) Yeah, I think so. I mean, you know, we've been dealing with the with the treaty Harvest here for a couple years now in Minnesota under the lower court rulings so far that's went along quite smoothly. I think, you know the fact that we did give people at opposed this an opportunity to get involved in the process and to try to effect change and stand up for what they believe in I would hope that you know at this point that would relieve and continue to relieve some of the bad feelings that people have about this whole issue. So I expect things to To continue the way they have in the past couple of years (00:24:30) in terms of resource management. Are you confident that the bands will do a good job in preserving the fishing and hunting and that part of (00:24:38) Minnesota. I don't know that I'm confident. I'm certainly very very hopeful and you know certainly wish and pray that they will do the best they can and and have the interests of the whole state in mind not just their membership. I you know, I don't know that they have the strongest track record to run on but you know, I think and hope that they will do their best mark. Thank you very much for joining us. Yes, Gary. Thanks for having me. (00:25:08) Appreciate it Mark Ronson who is Chairman of proper economic Resource Management a group called perm and they were one of the groups active in trying to pursue this case through the courts again, if you just tuned in the Supreme Court ruled this morning that 8 bands of Chippewa Indians. And continue to hunt and fish on public land in the state of Minnesota and he Central Minnesota without State regulation much debated issue long-awaited decision finally came down this morning and this hour of midday were trying to sort through what the decision says and at least get some preliminary sense of what it might all mean Scott strand is with us. He's former deputy Consul in the Minnesota State Attorney. General's office has been working on this case since 1992 and no longer with the Attorney General's office but is a is an expert in the area and Minnesota Public Radio is legal Affairs correspondent Elizabeth Stewart. He is with us. She's been covering this case and was out in Washington for the oral arguments. If you'd like to call in with a question if some of this is puzzling to you, you're not alone, six five one two, two seven six thousand. That's our Twin City area number six five. One two, two seven six thousand if you're calling from outside the Twin Cities and have a question. Give us a call at one eight hundred two four two 2828. And we'll get to some more callers in just a couple minutes. This is Robert Siegel all (00:26:31) things considered as more than a (00:26:33) news program. We bring you stories about ideas about the Arts about interesting people and developments in our lives that haven't made headlines. At least not yet. We bring you the stories of (00:26:43) commentators the insights of Scholars and the experiences of (00:26:47) all sorts of Americans (00:26:49) and we start with (00:26:50) the day's news (00:26:51) tune in later today to NPR's All Things Considered (00:27:00) over the noon hour today second hour of our midday program. We're going to catch up on the state of the city in this case the state of the city of st. Paul st. Paul Mayor Norm Coleman gave his state of the city address yesterday and he's going to stop by today to talk about what he sees is coming up in the city and to take your questions as well. That's over the noon hour today st. Paul Mayor Norm Coleman right now news headlines here is Greta Cunningham Greta. Good morning. Gary President Clinton says Will be a fight against racial and ethnic aggression in Kosovo. He made his comments today after us B-52 bombers left their bases in Britain worships are also standing by ready near the Balkans with NATO ready to launch airstrikes Yugoslav president Slobodan milosevic went on national television today to tell his people to defend the country by all means loss of it says the nation's freedom is at stake. Jesse Jackson is not running for president. Next year Jackson said today, he believes he can help minorities and the poor more by jump-starting private investment in their businesses. Britain's highest court has upheld the arrest of former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet a house Lords tribunal ruled that Pinochet is not entitled to immunity from arrest despite his status as a former head of state but the seven judges say he can't be prosecuted for any acts alleged before 1988 when Britain signed the International Convention Against torture Pinochet will now have to fight plans to extradite him to Spain or officials want to try him on genocide and tortured charges a Florida is Court today upheld a landmark 349 million dollar settlement of a class action lawsuit brought by flight attendants who claimed they were sickened by Second Hand Smoke and are cabins the Third District Court of Appeals knockdown objections by lawyers representing dissenting flight attendants who are not satisfied with the 1997 settlement. The three appeals judges disagreed saying the settlement was a boon to the plaintiffs in Regional new Senate Majority Leader. Dick day says today's US Supreme Court ruling to a pole treaty rights will increase efforts to break the tribes casino gambling Monopoly in a 5 to 4 decision today the court narrowly upheld chippewas right to hunt and fish on 13 million Acres of public land in Minnesota without State regulation day has been a big supporter of allowing slot machines at shock appease Canterbury Park, but Senate Majority Leader Roger Mo disagrees saying casino gambling and fishing rights are separate issues and should remain that way around the region at this hour sunny skies reported in Rochester report sunshine and 34. It's sunny in Duluth and 30 in the Twin Cities Sunshine a temperature of D6 Gary that's a look at the latest news. Thank you Greta. It's 24 minutes now before noon and this is midday and Minnesota Public Radio Scott strand is with us former deputy counsel in Minnesota State Attorney. General's office. Minnesota public radio's legal Affairs correspondent Elizabeth's to Wiki is with us and they're here today to talk about this morning's big Supreme Court ruling US Supreme Court ruling finding in favor of eight bands of Chippewa Indians and the Indians legal triggy treaty rights to hunt and fish in the Lake Mille Lacs area without State regulation lots of callers on the line with questions about the decision and the impact of the decision. So let's get back to the phones. Gary calls us from Esco the question glatzer. Oops. Sorry Gary. I didn't have you connected. There we go. (00:30:17) There you go. Hey, my question is is why is there so much xenophobia about the Indians having what they've had for four generations before hand. I mean there were fish before the the Indians and there'll be fish after the Indians II don't I hear a lot of people saying, you know, oh, there's no fish and Red Lake because the Indians of taking them. Well, I just don't believe that II see the big power boat. I see, you know, one of the hot issues up here now is O underwater cameras. Well, you know just how much fishing expertise does it take to pull a fish that you can see looking at you lure. I mean again, it's this fear of the unknown if they would know and see how Indians do and work in the woods and they're hunting and their practices. Maybe there wouldn't be Much of this back and forth and hatred towards one (00:31:17) another. So you're confident that the resources will be preserved under this under this Arrangement. (00:31:25) It was before the white man. It will be after the white man. You know it the fish and game in the what have you there's always cycles that they go through but I would be more interested in seeing just how many fish let's say like Potlatch kills or Bland and paper company kills, you know, like I live right next to the st. Louis River and that thing stinks like chemicals and bleach and whatever else they use in pot lat and no one makes mention about that because everybody's getting $20 an hour jobs. (00:32:01) Okay. Thanks Gary. Yeah appreciate the call. Let's move on to another caller here Kim who is on the line from friendly? Good morning. (00:32:10) Yes. Hi. I I have to agree with the previous caller. It's a I've done a lot of hunting and fishing when I was younger and so, you know, I understand the concern about resources, but I'm not going to repeat with the previous caller said but I go that route with it and I'd further I'm I'd rather bring up the idea that we have an obligation to do some healing of what has happened in the past. And I know a lot of white people don't like to hear that but there's there's a tremendous amount of wrong that has been done especially by the federal government in anything that can go in the direction of healing that and restoring some of what was brutally taken away from people from Indian people. I think is a step in the right direction. And so I'm really happy about the (00:33:10) ruling. Thanks Kim. Yes. Thank you Scott. And should this ruling be seen in that light as kind of compensation for past wrongs as opposed to simple upholding of legal rights. (00:33:26) Well, I think that it's it's a bit of a mistake to think of it that way. I mean it certainly has I think that that concerned about the way that Indian tribes were treated in the in the 18th and 19th centuries in this country has been a driving force in the way Indian law has developed. But at the same time it's also been based on a recognition that in our system of government. We have we have different levels of government. We have a federal government a state government and we do have Tribal governments and the when the boundaries are are affected where it's not clear which which authority is going to have ultimate control over something you get disputes like this and I think it really does ultimately come down to the issue of which government and who decides rather than a kind of a ham-handed way of trying to redress historical (00:34:21) wrongs. Does this provide Indians with special (00:34:26) rights? Well, the Indians have to the extent that there are there are different rights. If you are a member of a tribe that has a right under a treaty to exercise a degree of sovereignty over an issue like hunting and fishing you have a you are under a different set of regulations than someone who is not but just as there are different regulations between Minnesota and Wisconsin there were going to be different regulations between same elastic band members and non-members and that just something we're going to have to work with (00:34:59) Elizabeth sticky. We had a caller earlier wanted to know where he could get more information about the Treaty itself and the ruling and so on and you have that at your fingertips now and well if you have access to the internet, you can just go to Cornell University's website and just check out Su PCT Dot law dot Cornell Dot. Edu /s U PCT. Again. That's Su PCT Dot law dot Cornell dot edu /s U PCT and the decision is there and I also believe that the 1837 treaty related to this decision. Is there as well. I also had a had a question for Scott strand Scott it it seems like in the past or in the way that the u.s. Supreme Court has interpreted treaties in the past was somewhat of making up for past wrongs in the sense that the treaties were supposed to be red not in their plain language or just in exactly what they said, but that the court was supposed to go back in history and kind of interpret these treaties in the way that the Indians would have looked at signing these treaties at the time as kind of a way to make up for past. Strong's do you do you see any sense of that in this decision today? (00:36:33) Well, frankly. I don't see a whole lot of it in today's opinion. What I do see is a recognition that in the past the courts have for lack of a better term put their thumb on the scale on the in the Union's favor when construing things like treaties and that has its has a number of sources part of it. Is that notion of historical redress, but but a larger part of it I think is a recognition that there is a special relationship between the federal government and the tribal governments and that because of the decision of our courts to record a substantial degree of Independence and sovereignty to tribal governments that it makes sense to construe these documents in their favor. So I don't I don't see this as being a way to kind of make up for for past wrongs as much as it's just a recognition that That set of rules the language in these trees can can be interpreted ways that that might not seem obvious at first (00:37:35) joining us now is Marcy dolls whose Communications manager for the State Department of Natural Resources. Good morning. Good morning, Gary. Thanks for joining us. No problem. How will this effect? Can you give a shorthand version now of what's changed as a result of this ruling (00:37:56) well in effect nothing is changed because in because of this particular ruling as I think Scott mentioned earlier, we began last year with a five-year management plan that was approved by the court that allowed the band's to begin their Harvest activities last year. We began we are prepared this year to do so as well. We set a safe Harvest. Limo limit on Lake Mille Lacs of 550,000 pounds this year, which is about double what it was last year of that. The bands will be harvesting up to 55,000 pounds. So about 10% and plans have been underway to make sure that that can proceed so that everyone's rights are respected as a harvest goes (00:38:34) forward. How does the state have any regulatory control over Indian activities in that area at all (00:38:41) anymore? I'm not quite sure what the question means but the decision basically says that the band will regulate themselves in the face to part of the decision and Scott can correct me if I'm wrong. We looked at what the band's regulations were going to be and the state at that time had some opportunities to raise questions about the regulations. If there were issues relating to either conservation or Public Safety that we thought weren't addressed in the regulations. And so we have been through that process already in the court (00:39:12) process for non-indians if they want to go fishing on Lake Mille Lacs. Does this affect them in any way (00:39:21) other than the fact that there is a harvest Kappa 495 thousand pounds which is just over then the average Harvest on a yearly basis. There is no other effect but we expect fishing a Molex be very very good this year. As a matter of (00:39:36) fact, there was a while last year was to was it (00:39:38) not it was it was pretty good last year. We think of our projections are There's some really healthy healthy your classes out there and some nice-sized fish. (00:39:47) So in theory, there should be plenty of fish for (00:39:48) everybody. We we think (00:39:50) so, you are tended all these hearings in the rest and yet as you know, there's there's been concern over the years that there would be a lot of bitterness hard feelings, maybe some protests ugliness in the rest. You think that that were passed that now that people are going to accept this decision and and move on. (00:40:09) Well, I think past this is the wrong phrase. I think it just never was part of the scene in Minnesota. I have to give this hunters and anglers in Minnesota all kinds of credit for approaching this with a very level-headed approach saying we want to hear what the Supreme Court has to say and we're going to respect it and that has been what we've heard from day one on this and I really want to give the credit to the hunters and Anglers. We never had a threat of anything really happening. We were concerned because of what happened in Wisconsin than it might happen, but We had never had real evidence that it was going to happen. (00:40:47) Thanks, Marcy. Sure. Appreciate your joining us. Thank you, Marcy. Dawson was Communications manager with the State Department of Natural Resources. Not a lot of time left, but let's see if we can get a couple more callers on here with questions for Scott Strand and Elizabeth's to Wiki James your question, please (00:41:02) you know, my question was is now that the court decision has come down is why why don't they start working together now as far as conservation goes? Well, I think the bands and the state are working together and I think that will continue the process really will work on I think Marcy are starting to allude to it. I mean the bands will decide how much of an allocation of the Harvest they think they need to meet the needs of their members and then if necessary regulations at the state level that apply to non band members will be adjusted to accommodate that but obviously it's going to be in the interests of Of the bands and the state government to try to manage the resources in a way that will make sure that there are adequate opportunities for everyone. So I think that there's a good opportunity that there will be an atmosphere of cooperation. They're going to have to work together one way or another and there's no reason it can't be done in a way that will maximize the availability of these resources for everyone to Minnesota Neil your question. Yeah, actually, this is wondering what are the tribes required to contribute or what do they contribute now towards Resource Management most? I don't know how many people are aware but hunters and fishermen throughout the United States Minnesota contribute through pittman-robertson act while bro which are excise taxes that go directly towards the game and fish management and I was just curious to know to see what what the tribes do contribute in that manner. Well, there's a there aren't many contributions that are required by law. But the band's the Chippewa bands in the Upper Midwest have been putting some Some significant resources into into management of Game and Fish. There's an organization called the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, which is funded by a variety of the bands that I think has been playing a growing role in these issues. So there it's not fair to say that the tribes have not been making your contribution. Is there something where you know license fees and everything else is required in order to pay for management programs. It's not the same but it's there has been some at least tribal (00:43:12) contribution Marshall your question, (00:43:14) please. Yes, I'm calling to speak about the contrast and Leadership that I've experienced between Marge Anderson and our newly elected Governor Ventura where Marge Anderson has submitted a communication to the tribe saying if we win this we need to remember to be compassionate and respectful not to flaunt it to understand that this may be very disappointing to large numbers of other people and to go quietly about our business as contrasted to our Governor's leadership example, which I worry about very much. I agree with Carol Conley who says he's a great bully. I think he was less informed Less Reason less intelligent and I think he basically appeals to our most basic Tendencies toward greed competition stereotyping and bigotry. (00:44:10) He didn't die did note of course that the case was before the courts and then it's in the courts Province to How this is going to play (00:44:16) out. Well what he said is, you know, they maybe they ought to be back in canoes again and shooting arrows and my question is what kind of leadership do you think that is most consistent with the people of Minnesota these days I fear greatly about this new leadership appealing like I say to our most basic Tendencies and I think this is not Minnesota leadership and I'm wondering what you quite frankly and honestly and the two other experts you have their feel about the leadership exercised in this way and where we ought to look for guidance at this crucial (00:44:58) time. Okay. Well, I'm not going to comment and I don't think it's appropriate for Elizabeth to comment but Scott strand. I'm just wondering, you know from your dealings with the with the parties in this case are people in your estimation. They're going to accept the decision and I think my (00:45:19) decision I'm going to Echo the point that Marcy douse made earlier and that's that the really all sides of this dispute have have acted have acted responsibly all the way through we have not had incidents like they had in Wisconsin. We have not had overreaching on the part of the bands. And I think that there is a basis for constructive working relationship. You know, I thought that some of the governor's comments were unfortunate, but at the same time I have enormous confidence in the in the leadership at the State Department of Natural Resources Deputy Commissioner Morris in particular is is extremely aware of all these issues and very well-informed because he was involved in it earlier and I think that they have the capability there to to Foster that kind of Cooperative working relationship that will be in everyone's (00:46:09) interest just about out of time. Let's get at least one more caller on the bill your question, please (00:46:15) Yes, I'm wondering if this treaty there's been a lot of discussion around here about various treaties in the court. What is the exact scope of this Treatise this limited strictly to hunting and fishing or is this going to affect every other provision of that treaty? Well, the treaty is essentially about the the session of land I mean the fundamental provision in it. Is that the the Chippewa P&C did all of the land in this territory to the federal government and then in exchange for that the federal government allowed them to reserve certain certain rights and entitlements one of which was the privilege of hunting fishing and gathering in the ceded territory. I don't think this is going to have much of an impact beyond the hunting and fishing issue because there just aren't significant Provisions in the treaty that are going to affect anything else. It's not going to affect title to land. It's not going to affect regulatory Authority or taxation Authority or any of the other issues that sometimes come up this really ultimately will be about whose whose rules govern when it comes to the Harvest of Game and Fish (00:47:23) and just to recap again Lizabeth Scott. Is there any other legal Avenues here any Loose Ends legal loose ends or Is this is this it now on this particular (00:47:37) issue? Well, it besides the having to work through the 1854 issue up in northeastern Minnesota from now on this issue is going to be about making it work. It's not going to be about whether these rights exist because now the Supreme Court has decided that they do (00:47:53) thanks a lot for joining us got thank you Scott strand who's a former deputy counsel in the Minnesota State Attorney General's office. He's been working on this treaty rights case since 1992 joining us this hour to talk about the Supreme Court decision today upholding the Chippewa Indians rights under 19th century treaties to hunt and fish without State regulation Elizabeth's to Wiki. Thank you for coming by sorting through the decision on a on a very quick basis. You'll have lots more reporting through the day, of course. Okay. You're welcome Gary. This is midday coming to you in Minnesota Public Radio, and we will have much more on this story. Course through the day here on Minnesota Public Radio and coming up over the noon hour today. We'll be talking about the state of the city-state of st. Paul st. Paul Mayor Norm Coleman will be joining us and you'll have an opportunity to talk with the mayor that's coming up over the noon hour today second hour of our midday program.