[Katie Schumacher, Wisconsin Historical Museum]

Today, we are pleased to introduce Professor Larry Nesper as part of the Wisconsin Historical Museum’s History Sandwiched In lecture series. The opinion – opinions expressed today are those of the presenter and are not necessarily those of the Wisconsin Historical Society or the museum’s employees.

Larry Nesper is a professor of Anthropology and American Indian Studies at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He received his PhD at the University of Chicago in 1994 and has worked as a consultant for several of the Ojibwe bands and the Great Lakes Indian and Fish and Wildlife Commission. His current research is on the tribal courts in the state of Wisconsin and their relationships with the state courts. And he is interested in extending the Wisconsin Idea to the Native nations and developing collaborative research relationships between the tribes of the state and the university. Here, today, to discuss the Walleye War and its aftermath, please join me in welcoming Larry Nesper.

[applause]

[Larry Nesper, Professor, Department of Anthropology, University of Wisconsin-Madison]

Thank you, Katie.

And thank you all for coming out at this hour on such a beautiful day. So, it’s a pleasure to be here, and I’m going to talk about something that, from the looks of this audience, that a number of people probably have memories of. So, if I just say real quick, how many people have memory of –

[wide shot of audience with about half with their hands raised]

– the Walleye Conflict? Alright, about half or so. So, Ill – I’ll go into it. I’ll talk a little bit about what this conflict was about, how it was resolved, and the effects that it –

[slide titled – The Walleye War and its Aftermath by Larry Nesper, University of Wisconsin-Madison – and featuring a photo of the cover of his book The Walleye War]

– has had both in the tribal communities in the state as well as in the relationship between the state and – and the tribes in Wisconsin.

So, it’s the topic of a book that I wrote. It was actually written out of my dissertation, which was the sort of first take on this thing, and then it became a book in 2002. And I’ve subsequently been sort of working in –

[slide featuring a photo of a Native American spearing a walleye on the end of a boat taken at night]

– this area ever since that time.

So, probably an iconic image of this would be someone spearing a walleyed pike. Walleyed pike were speared in the – when the water gets to be about 43 degrees and they – the fish start coming in and into the – into spawn, and the tribes get out there and harvest mostly males. About 80% or 90% of the – of the fish that are taken are males and put in big tins –

[Larry Nesper, on-camera]

– like this, brought back. I’ll – Ill say more about this.

A highly regulated fish – fishery. That’s something that was not well known by a lot of people who were protesting this cause you probably remember there was quite a bit of protest.

[slide featuring a photo of a gathering of people with picket signs protesting the walleye hunt by Native Americans at a boat landing]

There’s not a great shot of it, but the boat landings where Indian people came out for, oh, about a two- or three-week period in April or early May. They’d come out to spear in early evening, and they were met by hundreds of protesters who contested the right, this treaty right to be able to do this. So, were going to talk a little bit about what those treaty rights –

[new slide featuring another photo of protesters at a boat landing holding a sign that says Save a Walleye, Spear an Indian]

– there’s another iconic image. Some of you might remember Save a walleye, spear Indian. So, we had very strong racial epithets being slung. And this is another –

[new slide featuring a photo of protesters holding a spear with an effigy of a Native American head on it]

– rather iconic image, I think, of somebody had created that image of an Indian person on the end of a spear. And this – this [is] the kind of image that you see repeated in lots of different venues.

[new slide titled – Minocqua, Wisconsin – featuring a photo of the outside of a liquor store that has full window advertisements for Treaty Beer whose label was an image of a Walleyed pike on the end of a spear and the tagline Stop Treaty Abuse]

At the time, there was an attempt, the – the Treaty Beer was being produced, which was an anti-Indian, anti-treaty fundraising effort that would get people out of jail who were being arrested for violating the civil rights of Indian people while they were exercising their treaty rights. And so, you had this advertised at one – a number of locations in Minocqua. This is all about, oh, 25 years ago. The war, really, I would put the dates on this somewhere between about 8 – 1985 an about 1991. And we’ll say a little about this and what this originates with.

[Larry Nesper, on-camera]

There’s a map that shows our state, in some ways –

[slide titled – The Ojibwe Ceded Territories – featuring a map of Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota showing a map color-coded by date of the areas that the Ojibwe tribes were forced out by the Federal government in 1836 (Michigan), 1837 and 1842 (Wisconsin) and 1854 (Minnesota)]

– before it was a state, 1837 and 1842. These are the – the – the – the lands that were ceded by the tribes to the federal government starting in 1836 and running all the way across to 1854. These are called cessions. Each one of these would be called a land cession. And they’re effectively real estate transactions between sovereign entities. That’s really what a treaty often is. It’s some sort of exchange, some sort of an agreement. But what’s important about it is there – is that it’s between sovereign entities.

[new slide titled – U.S. Constitution 1789 – – featuring the following bulleted points over an image of the U.S. Constitution – Re: Powers of Congress; Commerce clause, Article I, Section 8, The Congress shall have power to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian Tribes.]

I asked my students, is the word “tribe”, does the word “tribe” appear in the Constitution of the United States? They’re not sure.

[Larry Nesper, on-camera]

I don’t know that that’s a credit to our – our high school system, but they are not always sure. The word tribe does, in fact, appear. The word tribes appears in the Constitution of the United States. And it appears in the Commerce Clause under the Powers of Congress. And for our purposes, the significant of this is that tribes are antecedent sovereigns. They are sovereigns that the United States recognized that existed before the United States existed that the United States would have to deal with and contend with. Okay?

So, if you, in – in your mind, imagine the Constitutional Convention, it’s a bunch of representatives from states, and what they’re doing, they’re creating a federal government, they’re recognizing the political landscape, they’re basically saying there are states in the world, there are foreign nations in the world, and there –

[return to the U.S. Constitution slide with the Commerce clause highlighted]

– are tribes in the world, and we’re going to become another sovereign nation like those foreign nations. So, it’s explicitly recognized in the Constitution of the United States as different from what we’re creating as the United States.

[slide titled – Of treaties and the supremacy clause – featuring the following paragraph of Article VI of the U.S. Constitution over an image of the Constitution – all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding]

And – and – and the mechanism by which you deal with other sovereigns is the treaty power. You can’t legislate over other national entities. And what you do, therefore, is you use the treaty power. And for our purposes, what’s important about this is that the treaties are the supreme Law of the Land, they supersede what happens at the state level. The state can make the laws that it makes. If there is a treaty that deals with the same subject matter area, it’s the treaty law that supersedes the state law, and that’s – thats important for understanding the nature of the conflict that took place between the tribes, the Ojibwe tribes and the state of Wisconsin and others in – in the late ’80s and into the early ’90s.

[new slide titled – Treaty at Prairie du Chien, 1825 – featuring a map of Wisconsin, northern Illinois, Iowa, northern Missouri, and Minnesota that displays the boundaries of the Native American Tribes in those areas – Chippewa (northern Wisconsin and northern Minnesota), Menominee (Fox River valley of Wisconsin), Winnebago (central and southeastern Wisconsin), Sioux (southern Minnesota), Sac, Fox, Ioway (Iowa and northern Missouri), Chippewa, Ottawa and Potawatomi (Illinois and western Wisconsin). The slide also features a painting of the treaty negotiations at Prairie du Chien and the following statement – Establishes the borders between the tribes in the hopes of getting them to stop inter-tribal warfare]

So, if we back this up and go back to the early treaty period, once the United States has won the right from Great Britain through the war to this northwestern area, we’re gonna get – were gonna get the attempt to, from the – from the – from America’s point of view, to stop the inter-tribal warfare, which they saw as interfering with the fur trade, and do that because we misunderstood; we thought that this was all about territorial war. It really wasn’t territorial. Those weren’t the motivations for the warfare. But nonetheless, we said we’re gonna – were gonna get the border straightened out, and we would do that with the Treaty of Prairie du Chien –

[Larry Nesper, on-camera]

– in 1825, and it’s going to establish whose land is whose, which is to say who the United States government is going to negotiate with for purposes of land cessions that are to come.

So, then we get a map of Wisconsin that you probably have –

[slide titled – Wisconsin Land Cessions, Royce Areas – featuring a patchwork map of Wisconsin with all the lands ceded to the Federal government by the tribes]

– never seen before. But this is a map of the treaty cessions, the land cessions. They’re also called Royce Areas. And these are basically chunks of land that were identified, delineated in the treaty process, and effectively ceded to the federal government, always in exchange for something – money, services –

[Larry Nesper, on-camera]

– various different kinds of guarantees. And we’re going to focus on the ones that are – are – are significant here: the Ojibwe land cessions. So, those are the two Ojibwe land cessions that these treaties that –

[slide titled – Ojibwe Wisconsin Land Cessions – featuring the same patchwork map of Wisconsin treaty land cessions as the previous slide but now with a red circle around northern Wisconsin]

– that make a difference –

[the slide animates on the numbers 242 and 261 over two of the land cessions on the map in northern Wisconsin – 242 is in yellow and is most of north central and northwest Wisconsin and 261 is in gray and is far northern Wisconsin which abuts on Lake Superior and two thirds of what is now the upper peninsula of Michigan as well as the land labelled 242]

– in terms of the whole thing. They have numbers. So, there’s 242 and 261. All of these chunks of real estate are identified by a number. I tell my students those are suitable for tattoos, right? Cause if you’re born up in this area, you will always have been born in, you know, treaty cession number 242. That’s never going to change, so you can do that. It won’t be like having Max on your arm that says, you know, you may not love Max in 10 years. You know? But you –

[laughter]

[the slide animates on the dates for the Ojibwe Wisconsin Land Cessions – 242 ceded in 1837 and 261 ceded in 1842]

So anyway, 242 was ceded in the 1837 treaty.

[new slide titled – 1837 cession for the pine trees – featuring the same Wisconsin Land Cessions map on the right-hand side with the area labelled 242 circled with a red circle]

261 was ceded in the 1842 treaty. And we look at this – this thing –

[the slide animates on a quote from the Ojibwe leader named Maghegbo – My Father, Listen to me. Of all the country that we grant you we wish to hold on to a tree where we get our living, and to reserve the streams where we drink the waters that give us life.]

– and – and what was the deal? Basically, the United States wanted to purchase this land to get access to the pine trees. That was the intent. No one, no – really, on the – on the – on the non-Indian side, had any expectation, particularly of settling in this region. They didn’t think it was good for much other than the pine trees.

So, the tribes, what they said, “Well, we live here, and yes, we will sell this to you, but –

[Larry Nesper, on-camera]

– we want to continue to live here, and we want,” and its expressed in a very poetic way by one of these leaders, and says, we wish to hold on to the tree where we get our living, which is the maple trees, the – the streams where we drink, and the waters that give us life. So, they had no expectation –

[slide titled – 1837 cession terms – featuring the same map of Wisconsin treaty cessions with area 242 circled in red now smaller and on the left]

– about leaving it and leaving this area.

Though this was nationally a period where many of the treaties were removal treaties where the tribes were being removed to west of the Mississippi River, this is not a removal treaty. People have the expectation –

[the slide animates one the first bullet point about the terms of the 1837 treaty – For the term of 20 years]

– that they’re going to continue to live here, and you can see it by the terms of the treaty –

[the slide animates on the second of the 1837 treatys terms – $9,500 in money]

– in 1837. Every year –

[the slide animates on the third bullet point of the terms of the 1837 treaty – $19,000 in goods]

– $9500 in money, $19,000 –

[the slide animates on the fourth bullet point of the terms of the 1837 treaty – $3,000 to establish 3 blacksmith shops, support for blacksmiths, and furnishing them with iron and steel]

– in goods, $3,000 to establish blacksmith shops and furnishing them with iron and steel. You don’t agree to give the tribes, in exchange for the land, blacksmith shops unless everybody knows that everybody’s going to stay in place, that the tribes are going to continue to stay there.

[new slide with the same format now titled – 1837 cession, 13 million acres – and the two bullet points – For the term of 20 years and $1,000 for farmers, supplying them with labor, grain or seed]

13 million acres. $1,000 for farmers. We’re going to supply them with laborers –

[the slide animates on the next bullet point – $2,000 in provisions]

– grain, seeds.

[the slide animates on the next bullet point – $500 in tobacco]

$2,000 in provisions. $500 –

[new slide titled – 1837 cession – with the same format with the map and now the text of Article 5. The privilege of hunting, fishing, and gathering 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.]

– in tobacco. And then we get to the really important article, which is to say that privilege of hunting, fishing, and gathering in the wild rice upon the lands, the rivers, the lakes, including the ceded territory, is guaranteed to the Indians during the pleasure of the President. Indian people said, We’re going to stay. The United States government said, Fine. Indian people said, We’re going to hunt, fish, and gather on this land.

[Larry Nesper, on-camera]

And the United States government said, Fine. Regulate yourself. You know what you’re doing. You’ve been living here forever. You have an investment in sustainability, or whatever they said at that time in terms of the permanence of an Indian presence – presence here.

This is an interesting phrase. This sounds like the President can change his mind at any time he wants. From what we know now that phrase was not translated and told to the Indian people at the time to – to talk, to explain to them that the President can change his mind at any time. That was not something – they would have never agreed to that. They would have never agreed to that. That they – they had full expectation from the treaty language that was written in their language that they would continue to be able to stay – stay.

Alright –

[slide titled – Canons of treaty construction – with the Seal of the Supreme Court of the United States underneath it]

– I want –

[the slide animates on the following points – Ambiguous expressions must be resolved in favor of the Indian parties; Indian treaties must be interpreted as the Indians would have understood them; Must be liberally construed in favor of the Indians]

– to introduce an idea here that when – when you – when you interpret treaties, you have to understand treaties are not – that’s a white idea. That’s a western idea. That’s not an indigenous concept. So, that what – what has – what has evolved legally in the United States is that when we interpret treaties, we have to interpret them according to some canons, some agreed upon protocols, and that is that when – when an expression is ambiguous it must be resolved in favor of the Indian parties, they should be interpreted the way Indians would have understood them and they must be liberally construed in favor of the Indians. So, those are basically three different ways of saying pretty much the same thing, in my – by my reading. But if people said, We want to continue to hunt, fish, and gather –

[Larry Nesper, on-camera]

– well, that must be understood in a very expansive sense in – in terms of treaty construction of what Indian people understood when they were agreeing to do that.

1842 we’re going to get another treaty. Okay?

[slide titled – 1842 land cession treaty for the copper – featuring the same map of Wisconsin Treaty Land Cessions now with the area marked 261 circled in red on the left-hand side of the slide]

And notice there’s no reservations at this point, right? We don’t have reservations. There’s – theres almost no reservations anywhere in the United States at this time. People are not thinking in terms of reservations quite yet. They are thinking in terms of removal because by now, as you may know, the Cherokees are out of the southeast, a lot of the tribes in the – in the east have now been pushed out to Oklahoma territory, or Indian territory as they called it. So, this is – this is a similar kind of treaty. This is for the copper.

[the slide animates in the first bullet point – For 20 years]

For –

[the slide animates in the second treaty bullet point – $12,500 in money]

– 20 years –

[the slide animates in the third treaty bullet point – $10,500 in goods]

– 12-and-a-half thousand in money –

[the slide animates in the fourth bullet point about the treaty – $2,000 in provisions and tobacco]

– 10.5 in goods, 2,000 in provisions and tobacco.

[the slide animates in the last treaty bullet point – $2,000 for the support of two blacksmith shops, including salaries, iron and steel]

2,000, again, blacksmith shops, salaries, iron in steel. These are institutional structures, presuming Indian people are going to stay in place. Indian people want these shops here for tools.

[new slide titled 1842 land cession treaty – featuring the same map as the previous slide on the left and the first two bullet points – For 20 years, and $1,000 for two farmers]

20 years –

[the slide animates in the next treaty bullet point – $1,200 for two carpenters]

– 1,000, two more farmers, carpenters –

[the slide animates on the next bullet point – $2,000 for the support of schools]

– school support for –

[the slide animates on the next treaty bullet point – $5,000 agricultural fund]

– Indian people, agricultural fund –

[the slide animates on the next treaty bullet point – $75,000 for all debts to traders]

– big payment to the – to the traders who our Indian people are in debt to them, and they’re going to get paid off –

[new slide titled – 1842 land cession treaty – with the same map on the left side]

– through this treaty. And then –

[slide animates on the phrasing of Article II of the treaty – The Indians stipulate for the right of hunting on the ceded territory, with the other usual privileges of occupancy, until required to remove by the President of the United States]

– we get the same thing. Another provision in the treaty that says the right to hunt on the ceded territory, all the other usual privileges of occupancy are, until required to remove by the President of the United States. They were told, You’re never going to have to remove. We put this in all the treaties. Behave yourselves, don’t cause any trouble –

[Larry Nesper, on-camera]

– don’t kill any white people, and we will never have to exercise this – this clause. And Indian people effectively agreed to this and were very peaceful and would stay very peaceful for a long time.

So, what we’ve got built into these treaties, then, is the presumption that Indian people are going to continue to live in the land they ceded. They’ve basically sold the right to say, No. That’s basically what they’ve said. They’ve basically said, Yes, you can now decide who’s going to come in here, cut the trees, do the mining, etc. We’re going to get another treaty when – when – when iron ore –

[slide titled – 1854 Treaty of La Pointe – featuring a map of far northeastern Minnesota labelled Area 332 that abuts on Lake Superior]

– is discovered up in this area, as some of you may know. Up in 332 you can find the Mesabi Iron Range. We’re going to get another treaty –

[a blue circle animates in around the territory that is labelled 332]

– in this area –

[the slide animates in a quote from this treaty document – We found that the points most strenuously insisted upon by them were, first, the privilege of remaining in the country in which they reside]

– and – we get – we get from the treaty documents itself, the most strenuous, they most strenuously insist upon them the privilege of remaining in the country which they reside. They don’t want to move. They know that other tribes have been moved out, and they know they don’t want to do that.

[new slide still under the title – 1854 Treaty of La Pointe – featuring the same map of area 332]

So –

[the slide animates in the language of Article 11 of the treaty – And such of them as reside in the territory hereby ceded, shall have the right to hunt and fish therein, until otherwise ordered by the President.]

– Article 11, same thing. They should have the right to hunt and fish in that area until otherwise ordered by the President.

[new slide titled – Wisconsin Ojibwe reservations created by 1854 treaty – featuring a map of current Indian reservations in Wisconsin with a blue circle around the reservations on land that was once part of areas 242 and 261. They include Red Cliff, Bad River, Lac Du Flambeau, St. Croix and Lac Courte Oreilles]

We’re going to get the reservations out of this treaty. There had been an attempt to remove Indian people from northern Wisconsin in 1850, and so what the Indian people said, they said, We don’t want to ever be moved out of here. We want land that is especially designated for us. We’re going to continue to hunt, fish, and gather throughout the ceded territory, but we know – we – we know we want to stay. We – keep us here, and we designate reservations at that time. So, we get that.

[new slide titled – John Bear family and life on the land, ca. 1900 – featuring a photograph of the John Bear family and the statement – 1868 Wisconsin law applied to Indians]

And we can tell from photographs from the period, Indian people continue to live off the land. This photograph is about 1900, and I think of it as a kind of postcard for purposes of advertising Indian competence. This man is effectively saying, I can hunt. Hire me, I’ll be your guide. Here are these crafts that people want and such. We’ve got other items in here to suggest a permanent presence. This is off the reservation. This is not on the reservation. At the same time, Wisconsin is beginning to apply its laws to Indian – In – Indian people in violation of federal law. Cause, as you might remember, treaty law supersedes state law, right? The treaty said they can hunt, fish, and gather on these lands. Wisconsin is beginning to say, We’re going to take jurisdiction, we’re going to write the rules for hunting, fishing, and gathering, and we get deer seasons, and we get fish seasons. We get all kinds of laws regulating. We get licensing and all that kind of stuff. Indian people saying, No, you can’t do this to us. We have a treaty right. But they’re saying it in their own language. They’re poor. They don’t have the kinds of representation –

[Larry Nesper, on-camera]

– they can have.

1908, the Wisconsin Supreme Court says, We have jurisdiction over Indian hunting and fishing. The federal government is not stepping up at this point. The federal government has a trust obligation to the tribes that it is not acting upon at this time. It’s not stepping up and saying, Wait a minute, Wisconsin. There’s a treaty in place that allows these people to regulate themselves. They’re not doing that, and the result is a lot of bitter, strong feeling is developing. And that develops over the course of the late 19th century, into the 20th century. It gets so bad that by the 1950s the Bad River tribe declares a state of cold war against the D.N.R. Theyre being – they’re – theyre constantly being harassed. Their rifles are being confiscated. Their nets are being confiscated. Their spears, their fish, their – their – their deer that they’re hunting. People are being put in jail, and they constantly are saying, We have a treaty right to this. We have a treaty right to this. And the state government keeps on harassing them with this.

So, there’s a lot of stuff to say about the early 20th century, but I’m gonna say – Im gonna speed this up –

[slide titled – Chronology – featuring the bullet point – 1974 Boldt decision in Washington upholds fishing rights in their usual and accustomed places.]

– to get to the war itself and its aftermath.

We get a big decision in 1974 in the state of Washington that upholds Indian fishing rights in their usual and accustom places. That was the language in the treaty with the Washington tribes.

[slide animates on the next timeline bullet point – 1974 – Tribble brothers at Lac Courte Oreilles contest Wisconsin state law]

Within weeks of that decision in Washington, two brothers from the Lac Courte Oreilles reservation up in near Hayward go off reservation with a fishing spear and – and – and they tell – they tell the warden, We’re going to do this. The warden says, Don’t do this. I’ll arrest you. They pull out his treaty and says, I’ve got a treaty that says I can do this. And, you know, the rest, really, is history, as – as we’re going to find out.

[the slide animates on the next bullet point – 1978 Tribes lose LCO vs. Voight in federal district court]

They’re going to be arrested. It goes to the federal court. They lose in 1978 just down the street, around the corner here. They lose in a case called Lac Courte Oreilles v. Voigt in the federal district court. The tribes then, instead of walking away from this –

[the slide animates on the next timeline bullet point – 1983 7th Circuit reverses and treaty rights are upheld. (USSC denies cert.)]

– they go down the 7th Circuit Court in 1983. It’s reversed and treaty rights are upheld. And from what I’ve been told, the phones in the D.N.R. were flying off the hook because Indian people just went out and they began hunting and fishing as they had been doing in – in decades long before. And we got the beginnings of what I would call, and others would call the Walleye War.

[the slide animates on the next timeline bullet point – 1984 Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission formed]

1984, the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission is formed. That is a kind of Ojibwe D.N.R. It is a multi-band natural resource agency.

[the slide animates on the next timeline bullet point – 1989 Conflict over walleye spearfishing peaks]

And I would say in 1989, the conflict over the walleye spear fishing peaks with –

[new slide titled – Voight litigation – featuring the logo of the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission in the upper right of the slide and the following statement – In 1983, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit – these off-reservation usufructuary rights had not been extinguished by an 1850 Executive Order or by a later treaty negotiated in 1854. The court decided the resources should be allocated equally between the two groups Indian and non-Indian]

– hundreds of arrests of non-Indian people who are harassing Indian people. They’re fight – shooting slingshots at them. Guns are being fired. Tires are being slashed. All kinds of – of conflict is happening.

The court in Chicago, the – the – the appeals court basically looks at these off-reservations use rights, usufructuary rights. They say these were not extinguished in 1850. We don’t have to get into all the legal aspects of this. Maybe there’ll be a question about this afterwards. But for our purposes, I think we could say that the – what the court found, what these treaty rights are good, they’ve always been good, and they basically told the state of Wisconsin, and the tribes sit down together and work it out. Work out a treaty – treaty –

[Larry Nesper, on-camera]

– harvest. And we had a number of court decisions that would – would go on. We had – we had trials over walleye. We had trials over deer. We had trials over other fur bearers. We had trials over wild rice and that to figure out what’s the scope of this right, that the – that the – that the tribes have, and how are we going to make sure that the resources aren’t destroyed, right, by over-hunting or over-fishing or over – over-gathering? And that all gets worked out between the state of Wisconsin and the tribes through the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission.

As I said, it’s formed in ’84.

[slide featuring the logo of the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission and the bullet point – 1984]

Basically, the tribe said, there are six Ojibwe tribes in the state, they basically said, We’re not going to negotiate with the state one-on-one. Let’s negotiate as a group. So, they create this entity.

[the slide animates on the next bullet point – 11 Ojibwe tribes]

It – it turns out to be a total of 11 Ojibwe tribes because the treaty areas are also in Michigan, and they are also in Minnesota.

[the slide animates on the next bullet point – provides natural resource management expertise, conservation enforcement, legal and policy analysis, and public information services in support of the exercise of treaty rights during well-regulated, off-reservation seasons throughout the treaty ceded territories]

And theres the – theres the language. The Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission provides natural resource management expertise, conservation enforcement, legal and policy analysis, public information services in support of the exercise of treaty rights during well-regulated, off-reservation seasons throughout the ceded territory.

[new slide titled – Walleye War 1985-1991 – featuring four images, two photographs of non-Indian people protesting at boat landings, one of the image of the cover of Professor Nespers book, The Walleye War, and one of a protest illustration of a hand holding a revolver gun looking toward the barrel with the phrase Spear This!!!]

Then we have the war, right? And ugly images like this were common up north. And you saw some of these images that I showed you earlier. And it goes for a period of about five or six years.

[new slide titled – Federal Judge Barbara Crabb – featuring a headshot photo of Judge Crabb on the left and animating in the following phrase – injunction issued against interference with spear fishing]

It would end –

[the slide animate on the next part of the quote – and acknowledging the stench of racism ]

– when the tribes took the sheriffs and the leaders of the protest to court for violating their civil rights for racial reasons. You can violate people’s civil rights, but if you do it for racial reasons, you are now in a federal situation. So, instead of getting a slap on the wrist for screaming really ugly things at Indian people and – and preventing them, physically, from – from exercising their federally guaranteed right, it now became a federal issue, and that really chilled out the protest that went on.

[new slide titled – Exercising Your Treaty Rights – featuring the one-sheet that the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission offers Native Americans about their rights under the subheadings – Permits and tags for off-reservation treaty hunting, trapping and gathering; Where to get permits; Off-reservation treaty harvests permits and tags; Deer, bear, fisher, otter and bobcat tags]

It’s an extremely regulated fishery for hunting walleye. Extremely regulated for wild rice and for all of the other things that the tribes are doing in the state of Wisconsin. This is just an example about exercising your treaty rights. It – it’s telling –

[Larry Nesper, on-camera]

– people about the har – about the permitting process. These are tribal members. All the – all the tagging that’s required, all of the regulations that are required.

The other thing that emerged at this time were tribal courts for the Ojibwe people, and the courts were really created for a –

[slide titled – Tribal off-reservation codes and courts established – and featuring a photo of the inside of a tribal court]

– number of the tribes for purposes of adjudicating disputes between tribal members who were accused of violating tribal law in terms of how many walleye they took, how many musky, deer, etc. So, you’d wind up in a place like the Lac du Flambeau Tribal Court, being charged by the tribe for violating some aspect of the law. Very highly reg-regulated.

[new slide titled – Quarterly Newspaper, http://wwwlglifwc.org/publications/mazinaigan – and featuring the logo for this quarterly newspaper called Mazinaigan – A Chronicle of the Lake Superior Ojibwe]

The Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission puts out a quarterly newspaper publication called Mazina’igan, and it runs all these articles about the fish biology, the management of – of all of the different species in the area, on deer, on lamprey, on – on various invasive –

[Larry Nesper, on-camera]

– species. It’s basic – basically the Ojibwe tribal view of the northern third of the state’s natural resources condition as they implicate the exercise of hunting, fishing, and gathering rights, right? So, they’re concerned. It – it’s really a scientific group, the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wild – and policy, as I say, policy and law enforcement and all of that bundled up together. You get tremendous amount of scientific production. There are a couple hundred or more scientific reports –

[slide titled – accountability – featuring the cover page for a report by the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commissions named – Results of the 2005 Off-Reservation Waawaashkeshi (Deer) and Makwa (Bear) Harvest in the Ceded Territories of Michigan]

– that are on the website right now that you could look at and you can see the – the ways in which science and traditional Ojibwe values are being brought together to manage these resources and facilitate this stuff.

[new slide titled – Over 200 technical reports at GLIFWC.org – featuring a screenshot of the webpage that lists all the links to all the technical reports on the website]

There’s an example from their web page. And this I took a few years ago. There were over 200 technical reports in there. I mean –

[the slide dissolves in a magnified line from the list of the technical papers called – Open-Water Spearing and Netting in the 1837 Minnesota Ceded Territory During the 2008-2009 Quota Year]

– they have titles like this, you know, talking about the Minnesota area during the 2008-2009 quota year. So, these things – if you have trouble sleeping at night, download some of these and start reading them and you’ll wake up in the morning and it’ll be sitting on your chest because you’ll be reading these, you know, average walleye taken per hour by these people in April and it’s that kind of very, very –

[new slide titled – Midwest Region Tribal Fish Hatcheries – featuring a map of Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan with all the reservation lands indicated as well as all the tribal fish hatcheries indicated and noting that – over 44 million fish released into both on and off-reservation waters in 2012!]

– detailed stuff.

The tribes have created a whole number of fish hatcheries. Those are the fish hatcheries in the – the ceded territory area because the tribes are very active in wanting to create the sustainability here. Tribal people who live in this region know they can’t go anywhere else. They’re going to be here. They have a big investment in the permanence of the resources. They’re quite concerned about climate change for that reason, for example, because that has implications for the species that they use and that. But we have all these, 44 million fish released. This was in 2012. I don’t have more updated numbers –

[Larry Nesper, on-camera]

– but it’s probably something along these lines where you’re getting this. And these are being reported –

[slide featuring a featured article from the GLIFWCs newsletter titled – Tribal hatcheries boost fish stocks – Inland lakes, rivers and Gichigami benefit that includes several photos of Native Americans stocking fish]

– in the Mazina’igan, the quarterly newspaper, which is available free. It’s online. You could get it mailed to your house if you like.

[new slide titled – Cooperative Management – LCO v. Wisconsin, deer stipulations – featuring the major bullet – E. Management Authority – and the subsection 2. Defendants (state) agree to officially recognize tribal representatives as official members of the following committees and processes – a) annual deer quota settling process; b) comprehensive review of over winter deer population goals and deer management unit boundaries every three years; c) deer species advisory committee and any other committee created to manage or impacting deer range and white-tailed deer in ceded territory]

This – I’m just showing you this for purposes that the relationship between the state and the tribes has changed now. Before 1983, the state unilaterally governed and managed the resources. Now, there’s a cooperative management that is in place between the tribes, and you get things like – like this. This is about the deer stipulations that they’re going to talk about the deer – about the deer hunt in the northern third of the state and we’re gonna – were gonna – were gonna watch this process together in terms of – of how this whole thing unfolds. Who’s going to do what when.

[new slide titled – Cooperative Management – LCO v. Wisconsin wild rice stipulations]

Same thing with –

[the slide animates in the following bullet point – 1. The defendants (state) agree to consult with the Voight Task Force before the issuance of any permit which is required to be obtained from the State regarding any activity which may reasonably be expected to directly affect the abundance or habitat of wild rice in the ceded territory, including but not limited to. Permitting activities under Wis. Admin. Code secs. NR 19.09(1), 80.02 and 80.03, secs. 29.29(4), 30.11, 30.12, 30.18-20, 31.04, 144.025(2)(i) and ch. 147. Stats]

– wild rice stipulations. They consultant with the Voight Task Force before issuing permits, etc. Any kind of change in the way in which the state is going to manage –

[a new slide under the same heading – Cooperative Management – LCO v. Wisconsin wild rice stipulations – and the new bullet point – the defendants agree to consult with the Voight Task Force before the State undertakes any activity that does not require a permit but which may reasonably be expected to directly affect wild rice abundance or habitat, the Voight Task Force will be afforded an opportunity to participate in any meeting or decision which may affect wild rice abundance or habitat]

– Indian stuff is going to be worked through, etc. But these were all the stipulations that were in place. And these were put in place by the federal court, and they bind both the tribes and the state to a cooperative relationship for purposes of managing this whole, these two treaty areas. And you saw from the map, this is basically the northern third of the state.

It’s got to be managed for purposes of – of safety. It’s also got to be managed for purposes of the –

[Larry Nesper, on-camera]

– the species have to be there for everybody. So, a lot of science and a lot of negotiation goes through this thing.

Just some changes that have happened. I’ll talk for just a few more minutes maybe. Maybe another 10 minutes or so on some of the things that happened.

Some of you are familiar with the chronic wasting, the night hunting case. One of the things that happened in the deer trial when the tribes said, in 1989, 1990, We want to hunt deer at night. We’ve always hunted deer at night. We hunt deer on the reservation,

[slide titled – Chronic Wasting Disease night hunting – featuring two maps of Wisconsin showing the designated hunting areas and the spread of Chronic Wasting Disease in these areas over time. Additionally, there is the following bullet point – 2002-2011, the D.N.R. used some 300 sharpshooters to shoot deer in locations where CWD was thought to be present authorized to and did shoot deer at night for at least ten years]

– and we’ve been doing this for hundreds of years in this region. We want to be able to do that in the ceded territory as well. And that state said, Absolutely not. Nobody can hunt deer at night. Nobody can shoot rifles at night for – at this kind of thing, and they made a very strong case for it, and they won.

And then we had a few developments take place. One was the chronic wasting disease. We were – we had sharpshooters now, in the state of Wisconsin, between 2002 and 2011, who are shooting deer. Some of these deer are being shot at night. So, the state is now sort of rolling back its position and saying, Well, sometimes we have to have people shoot deer at night.

[new slide titled – Wisconsin Natural Resources Board approves 2012 wolf hunt quota, zones and rules that dissolves in a map of the Wolf Harvesting Zones in Wisconsin for that year]

We got a wolf law come in.

[the slide animates in the point that – and NOT on Menominee, Stockbridge-Munsee, Lac du Flambeau, St. Croix, Bad River or Red Cliff reservations]

And the same kind of thing. Notably, the tribes had wanted no part of this, of – of hunting wolves because of the way they feel about wolves –

[new slide featuring the cover of the GLIFWC quarterly newsletter, Mazinaigan featuring the Fall 2012 issue that has the headline – States set wolf harvest seasons in Wisconsin and Minnesota – Tribes rally to protect Maiingan]

– which is this. For Ojibwe, as well as other American Indian tribes –

[the slide animates out and enlarges the quote that Professor Nesper is reading]

– the wolf is a brother. “Ma’iingan” is a teacher, a companion. Members of the Wolf Clan are guardians and providers, etc. So, there’s a strong identification between humans and wolves, and they wanted no part of this. But what it did was it, and –

[new slide with just the excerpt about the wolf from the quarterly newsletter – For Ojibwe as well as additional American Indian tribes, the wolf is regarded as a brother; in origin stories, maiingan is a teacher and companion. In tribal society, members of the wolf clan are known as guardians and providers. Throughout traditional teachings, many believe that wolves and Ojibwe Indian people share the same fate – what happens to one will happen to the other.]

– especially when –

[new slide under the heading – Wisconsin Natural Resources Board approves 2012 wolf hunt quota, zones and rules – now with bullet points about the specifics of the hunt – Dogs- May use up to 6 dogs in a pack to track or trail wolves beginning of day after November gun deer season; Night Hunting – Legal option beginning day after November gun deer season]

– the – the – the laws of the regulations –

[the slide animates on the next wolf hunt bullet point – Use of Lights – Flashlights only at point of kill]

– came through, night hunting of wolves was gonna be permitted.

Okay, now here we have two things going. Chronic wasting disease, we can have some deer shot at night. We can also shoot – we can also shoot wolves at night now. This is non-Indian people. So, the tribe said, We want to revisit this business about night hunting of deer off the reservation.

[slide titled – Attempt at a tribal nighttime deer hunt – featuring the following bullet point over the top of the logo for the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission – On November 21, 2012, the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission issued an order carving out and exception to the ban on nighttime hunting of deer. It permits Tribal members to obtain a permit to shoot deer at night is they can satisfy certain stringent requirements]

So, they did. And they issued an order. They said to the D.N.R, We’re going to go ahead and do this. And the D.N.R., Well, you’ll see what’s going to happen. The Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission –

[Larry Nesper, on-camera]

– in 2012, said, We’re going to create an exception to the ban on nighttime hunters, and we’re going to permit tribal members to do this. And the D.N.R. went to court and stopped them.

[slide featuring a screenshot of an article on the WMTV website from December 17, 2012, that has the headline – UPDATE: US Judge Blocks Wis. Chippewas Night Deer Hunt]

And the Judge Crabb said, No, that’s right, we can’t have this go. And so, the tribes then –

[new slide titled – Full trial July 2013 – featuring a screenshot of a local news webpage with the headline – Wis. Tribes increase safety protocols for night deer hunting, witness says as trial begins]

– had a full trial over this thing in July of 2013, putting forth their new safety protocols for a night deer hunting.

[new slide featuring a screenshot of a Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel website article with the headline – Court rules in favor of tribes seeking night deer hunting]

And then Barbara Crabb said, No. It went down to the 7th Circuit again, and back there in sweet home Chicago they said, they came back, and they said to the state, You’re not giving us evidence of why it is that these people can’t hunt deer off the reservation at night, especially given how safe –

[new slide titled – Ceded Territory Night Deer Hunting regulations – with the following bulleted list – 1) receive marksmanship training and a marksmanship proficiency rating from the tribe, the U.S. armed forces, or a law enforcement agency; 2) complete a 12 hour advanced hunter safety course; 3) create a shooting plan that will be carried with them on any nighttime hunts and will be entered into a database that can be accessed by the Conservation Enforcement Division in the field; 4) designate their safe zone of fire, which requires members to preselect their point of kill and to ensure that there is an adequate backstop to catch any errant bullets; and 5) shoot from a stationary position]

– they propose to do it. And here’s the safety stipulations on this. You have to be able to – you have to be able to put, what, eight of 10 bullets into a target at 100 yards that’s this big around at night. Six-and-a-half inches at night. There(s) a very high standard to be able to do this. Hunter safety class has to be taken. You have to file a shooting plan. You have to designate – designate a safe zone of fire. Shoot from a stationary position. It’s highly, highly regulated. Very difficult to do this. I asked how many deer were shot because we now have this in place, how many deer were taken in the last season, and it’s – its about 10 deer. Ojibwe tribes shot about 10 deer in that because of the – how – how difficult it is to pass through this and then also be successful and hunt deer at night. So, all of our fears about tribal people in possession of guns on public land under these kinds of circumstances have not been met.

The other thing –

[slide titled – Statement from GLIFWC Chair Michael J. Isham, Jr. regarding 2013 Wisconsin tribal declarations – featuring a photo of Chairman Isham and the following quote – Wisconsins Ojibwe Tribes have declared their need for fish consistent with their responsibilities to help provide food for their communities. More and more tribal citizens are relying on Mother Earths gifts as an integral part of a healthier diet and a holistic lifestyle enriched by cultural and spiritual pursuits]

– that happened in this state for a while was that the – the tribes declare on March 15th how many walleye they’re going to take. And they are setting their numbers of walleye under a certain limit to make sure they’re under what’s called safe harvest. But they’re – theyre – theyre – theyre doing this cause for the reasons that the chairman here says, to provide food for their communities. More and more tribal citizens relying upon Mother Earth’s gifts as an integral part of healthier diet, holistic lifestyle, and all that.

We know that it’s better to eat, especially in these lakes up north, better to eat that kind of food than it is other kinds of food. So, those are the reasons why it is that the numbers are – appear to be high from at least –

[new slide titled – Ceded Territory shared walleye fishery – with the following bulleted list – Estimated number of walleye taken by sportsfishfolk in the Ceded Territories per year = 250,000; Exact number of walleye taken by Ojibwe tribal members in 2015=38,512]

– some people’s position. And then we can take a look at this.

Throughout the ceded territory, about a quarter of a million sportsfisher people. Quarter of a million fish are taken out of the lakes up in that region. But notice, it’s an estimated number because you go out and you get your walleye, and you bring em in and you go home. Nobody’s there. You might run into a warden. Most likely you won’t. Whereas, we know exactly how many fish are speared by Indian people, by Ojibwe people, because every one of them has got to be counted, because you have to have a permit to go do it, because it’s only certain lakes, because it’s only certain days, and because when you come off that boat landing, because it’s only certain boat landings, you – you are met by wardens who sit there and count and sex and measure every single fish.

So, you can know things like how many, you know, walleye in the 15- to 18-inch age class did –

[Larry Nesper, on-camera]

– Gibby Chapman, a Lac du Flambeau tribal member, take on the night of April 21, 1993. You can ask a question like that, and you can get an answer. We know. We know that because that’s how carefully this stuff is taken.

What you’ll see with this chart is that in – on – on the 15th of – of March the tribes –

[slide titled – Walleye declarations and harvests – featuring a table with a column for the years 2010 to 2016, a column for the declared number of walleye that the Ojibwe say that they are going to harvest, and a final column for the amount that they actually harvested and the following data (year; declared; actual) – 2010;59,659;36,631, 2012; 54,057;32,321, 2013;59,399;28,481, 2014;63,488;27,725, 2015;68,226;38,512, 2016;58,337;32,601]

– declared they’re gonna take this many. At – by the end of the season, they have actually harvested about half of what they said they’re going to take. What has happened – the – is a number of – there’s been politics around this where the bag limits for sportspeople get cut back, and then they’re set up again. They’re – theyre – theyre dropped down from five to two or one, and then they’re set back –

[new slide titled – Effect of the 2013 walleye declarations – featuring a bulleted list – 197 lakes – 1 walleye; 331 lakes – 2 walleye; 7 lakes – 3 walleye; until the D.N.R. resets bag limits after the tribal harvest]

– up again when it turns out that the tribes don’t take as many fish as they said we’re going to take.

[slide titled – New Rule – with the following bullet point – 3 walleye bag limit for anglers on lakes declared by tribes for fishing. If 95% of safe harvest (about 12% of total estimated population of walleye) is reached, bag limit goes to 0]

I’m going to skip over this new rule. This is a new rule about this, about the –

[new slide titled – Mining and the ceded territories – featuring a photo of the Bad River Tribal Chair, Mike Wiggins and a screenshot of the webpage for the TwinCities.com with the headline – Wisconsin – Walker signs Republicans contentious mining bill]

– doing this. And just say something about how things have changed for how the tribes see themselves and what they see as their responsibilities now.

There’s been a much higher level of consciousness about taking care of the ceded territories now –

[Larry Nesper, on-camera]

– that Indian Ojibwe people are capable and are interested in harvesting from that area. They feel responsible for this. They feel themselves to be stewards for it in a way in which they didn’t while the state was preempting them from taking that by making it illegal, calling it violating or poaching when they were exercising their treaty rights from that period from about the 1860s until about the 1980s, okay? So, over a century period.

So, we get one of the aspects of this –

[return to the – Mining in the ceded territories – slide featuring Mike Wiggins and the website page]

– was the tremendous anxiety on the part of at least Bad River but at least a number of the other tribes when this iron ore mine was proposed for northern Wisconsin. That frightened people up in Bad River a great deal for the implications that this would have for the Bad River itself, for the fish in the river, for the wild rice in the river, for the waterfowl in the river, for the deer, etc. because of the increased reliance upon these natural sources of food and the effects that that would have.

[new slide titled – Bad River Reservation, Bad River Watershed, and the Penokee Mountain Ore Body – featuring a map of the Bad River reservation as well as the surrounding areas lakes and rivers with the area of proposed mining indicated by a red rectangle]

And you can see this is the area that this – this is the mining body itself. This was the area that’s going to be affected, and it all winds up getting into –

[new slide with a map titled – Surface waters potentially filled by iron mining give provisions of AB1/SB1 as amended February 5,2013 – that shows the area of proposed mining activities in yellow as well as all the waterways affected in red]

– the – the Bad River –

[new slide which features a meme which features a photography of a soldier-of-fortune in camouflage next to a truck with the phrase – This isnt S. America. This is a mine in Wisconsin]

– which created this.

This may have been the image that wound up playing a big role in why it is that project would fail. An out-of-state security company was hired, and it looked a little bit more like Ecuador or Guatemala than northern Wisconsin. And many of you may remember that rather troubling image when – when armed people were protecting this potential mine site from these, basically, kids who were coming –

[new slide titled – Long-term effects – with the following bulleted list – Increased awareness of tribal responsibility for, and spirituality of, their harvests; Increased communication between the bands regarding ceremony, feasting seasons; Deeper engagement with state departments – Transportation, Natural Resources, Tourism, Justice]

– in there to raise hell with them.

Like I said, there’s a long-term increased awareness of the tribal responsibility for and the – the spirituality of their harvest. There’s increased communication between the bands now of Ojibwe people regarding ceremonies, regarding feasting. There’s been a real renaissance of culture there. A much deeper engagement with various state departments, especially those but others as well, where there’s a lot of cooperation that – that obtains between the tribes as governments as well as the state.

[new slide titled – State of the Tribes Address, since 2004 – featuring a photograph from one of the State of the Tribes Addresses at the State Capitol]

We – you’re probably aware that every year we have a State of the Tribes Address since 2004. This has been an outcome of this treaty rights conflict where one of the tribal chairmen addresses a joint session of the Wisconsin Legislature and talks about issues that are important to the tribes. And again, the theme on this is cooperation, and there’s critique that goes back and forth, of course. It becomes a stage for tribal chairmen, at times, to say to the legislature, We disagree with you on this. It becomes a very public kind of thing.

[new slide titled – International effects – Anishinaabe Akii Protocol – featuring a photo of Fred Kelly of the Ojibways of Onigaming First Nations (Canada) delivering a speech on Ojibwe strategic planning and using the Ojibwe language]

There’s also been international cooperation between the Ojibwe. The Ojibwe go, you know, as you could tell from what I was talking about with the Constitution. The Ojibwe people are on the landscape before there is a United States before there is a Canada. So, we have cooperation now between the Ojibwe bands in the northern Great Lakes area as well as the Ojibwe bands up in Ontario and such. And here’s a – the Anishinaabe Akii Protocol is a cooperative relationship between the tribes of the north, north of the international border.

[new slide titled – Waadookodaading Language Immersion School – featuring a photograph of a classroom in said Immersion School with a teacher watching a student working on an Indian craft]

One of the – the educational aspects, outcomes, of this is a recommitment to tribal languages that’s come out of this. And this is the Waadookodaading Language Immersion School up there at Lac Courte Oreilles. That’s been going for about 10 years. So, we now have children who are becoming conversant in the tribal language that was endangered. So, this has been one of the outcomes in the aftermath of the Walleye War. Another one we can’t even get into but – but as you probably well know, all of the gaming stuff comes up after this happens, right? This ends in 1991. The conflict ends actively in ’91 –

[Larry Nesper, on-camera]

– and we get the gaming contracts in ’92. And the political sophistication that came out of the treaty rights negotiation plays a role in the tribe’s capability in getting good gaming contracts as a result, and this had an effect for a lot of the tribes.

There’s –

[slide still under the title of – Waadookodaading Language Immersion School – now featuring a photo of students playing Native American drums and singing]

– another image from this. So, we get this – this valorization of culture and appreciation.

[new slide featuring the Wisconsin Act 31 webpage from the University of Wisconsin-Madisons School of Education and the following quote – the statutory requirement that all school districts provide instruction in the history, culture, and tribal sovereignty of the twelve American Indian nations and tribes in the state. WisconsinAct31.org is meant to support educators and librarians in identifying and collecting instructional materials to support Act 31]

And I think the last thing I want to say is the implications that this has had then for the rest of non-Indian Wisconsin, and this is Act 31, which requires that instruction be given about the indigenous tribes of the state to children in grammar schools as well as high schools so that hopefully we don’t have another conflict like we had in the 1980s where people were basically out there, they were ignorant. I went out there on those boat landings, and I asked people who were screaming at Indian people, What do you know about how many fish are being taken? What do you know about treaty rights? What do you know about the Constitution? And they said, We don’t have to know anything. We don’t like this. Well, thats a measure – that – that – that kind of ignorance is a real formula for ugly conflict, and we – some of you who remember this at the time, and those of you who don’t, those – there’s plenty of images online that you can look at.

I think we’re going to leave a few minutes for any questions that we have.

[Larry Nesper, on-camera]

And so, why don’t we – why dont we do that now.

[applause]