Running

head: RESEARCH PAPER

Social Work 383 Research Paper:

Hunting and Fishing Rights of the Chippewa tribe of Wisconsin

Rachael Bowe

University of Wisconsin Eau Claire

RESEARCH PAPER

Abstract

This paper explores the hunting and fishing rights of tribes in the United States of America,
particularly those of the Chippewa nation of Wisconsin. The 1837 Treaty with the
Chippewa, informally referred to as the White Pine Treaty, is recognized as the most
important acknowledgment of the Chippewas hunting, fishing, and gathering rights in
history. The background of this treaty and many other treaties and legislations surrounding
it are explored and analyzed to provide a historical timeline of the fight for treaty rights
over the past two hundred years.

Keywords: Chippewa, Hunting, fishing, and gathering rights, White Pine Treaty,

RESEARCH PAPER

Social Work 383 Research Paper:

Hunting, Gathering, and Fishing Rights of the Chippewa tribe of Wisconsin

Native American tribes have had complicated relationships with policy and

legislation since their introduction to them by the settlers in the 16th century. Because of
the cultural differences between the Europeans and Native Americans, many conflicts over
resources and ways of life were prevalent between the two. In an attempt to coexist
somewhat peacefully in the same country, treaties were drafted as a compromise between
the two cultures. However, all 370 of the first round of treaties made in the Sixteenth
century with Native Americans were broken by whites, showing just how little value the
Europeans placed on their treaty deals with the Native Americans (Jimenez, 2010, p. 150).
These broken treaty deals were often followed by relocations, Christianization efforts,
racist acts, assimilation efforts, and violence, increasing the amount of distrust and distaste
between the two cultures. To this day treaty rights are still being debated and broken, and
although much has been restored, there is still debate and a stigma surrounding the rights
of tribes in the United States.

This paper focuses on the right of tribes to hunt, fish, and gather freely on and off

their reservations, with particular attention paid to the Chippewa nation of Wisconsin and
the rights granted to them in the 1837 Treaty with the Chippewa (otherwise known as the
White Pine Treaty). This treaty will be broken down and analyzed over the next few pages
to justify the fight made by the Chippewa to maintain these rights stated in the treaty,
today.
Description of the Issue

RESEARCH PAPER

Soon after the White Pine Treaty was implemented, the Chippewa faced an

attempt to abolish their newly specified rights with the 1850 Removal Order and the 1854
Treaty with the Chippewa, where more of their land and rights were ceded. These
measures were later shown to be irrelevant and invalid, but the fight to abolish tribes
rights continued into the 20th century, with the State v. Morrin case in 1908. The ruling
from this case was as follows:

The act of Congress admitting Wisconsin into the Union on an equal footing with the

other states abrogated the stipulations of the treaty of March 28, 1843, with the

Chippewa Indians respecting their rights to hunt and fish within the borders of the

state, so that they were thereafter subject to the laws of the state in that regard; and
the treaty of September 30, 1854, giving to the Indians residing in the territory
thereby ceded the right to hunt and fish therein, does not operate exempt from the
state laws an Indian who, under the act of Congress of February 8, 1887, had
become a citizen of the United States and of this state (Conover, 1908, p. 553).

This ruling was a big hit for the Chippewa, as it removed a huge food and income source
and cultural staple from the Chippewa for the next 75 years until it was reversed by federal
appeals court judges in 1983 with the Voigt Decision (Satz, 1994, p. 85).
However, to get this reversal, a lot had to be done to advocate for the Chippewa.
One of the most influential advocacy moves was a nonviolent declaration of war from the
Bad River Band Tribal Council in 1959, which stemmed from several unjust arrests of tribal
members fishing and hunting made in the 1950s (Satz, 1994, p. 89). These arrests were
largely due to the increase in tourism in Wisconsin during the 1940s and 1960s, as
hunting licenses increased from 400,000 to 622,000 during those years (Satz, 1994, p. 89).

RESEARCH PAPER

The tourists would go to the same spots the tribal members were at, and conflict would
generally ensue, with the police overwhelmingly choosing the side of the tourist over the
tribe member when they could. These interactions were substantial enough that they lead
to a declaration from the attorney general saying that tribe members still had their treaty
right to hunt and fish freely on their reservations, just not off of them. After this much more
advocacy was done by the Chippewa and other tribe members and the issue of hunting and
fishing rights was brought to the political roundtable multiple times over the 1960s
through the 1980s until the final ruling in 1983.
Policy Responses to the Issue
As previously stated, there have been several different policies and acts surrounding
tribal treaty rights over the past one hundred years alone. The path to the elimination of
hunting and fishing rights began with the arrests of several native hunters and fishermen in
the early 1900s, which yielded an act published in 1927 that prohibited anyone without a
license from hunting, and even went so far as to say, Indians hunting, fishing, or trapping
off reservation lands are subject to all provisions of this chapter (Laws of Wisconsin, 1927,
p.p. 282-283). After this, tribal members from all over the state expressed their outrage, so
the Hayward congress brought Chippewa members from Michigan, Wisconsin, and
Minnesota to discuss their feelings about their disappearing hunting and fishing rights, and
while their feelings were heard, there was no lenience given on the new licensing ruling.
The next legislation came in 1953, when congress passed public law 280, further
restricting hunting and fishing violations. Then, as aforementioned, came the rebuttal of
the tribes, with the nonviolent war declaration from the Bad River Tribal Council, which
was followed by the attorney generals statement saying that treaty rights were still

RESEARCH PAPER

permitted on reservation lands, and that the laws only applied to those hunting and fishing
off of tribal lands. After many failed proposals, the U.S. court of appeals finally upheld the
Chippewas off reservation hunting, gathering, and fishing treaty rights created in 1837 and
1842, but the Supreme Court refused to hear the case, therefore upholding the Chippewa
treaty rights (Waasa). This was a big stride, but racism and ignorance about the treaties
still existed well after this, so the management of all the treaty rights was directed to the
Chippewa Ottawa Resource Authority in 2001 to, hopefully, be properly handled and
followed.
Specific Proposal
The policy area being researched is the 1837 Treaty with the Chippewa, as this has
been the most regarded, altered, and argued piece of legislation regarding the Chippewas
hunting, gathering, and fishing rights over the past one hundred, plus years. There are six
articles stating what different rights, payments, and lands the members of the Chippewa
tribe have. Article five is the most relevant to this topic, as it clearly states that the tribe has
the right to hunt, fish, and gather on the lands and lakes included in the territory ceded.
This article has been used in many legal disputes to argue that the Chippewa do indeed
have the right to hunt and fish, despite some court rulings and legislations saying
otherwise. It is because of this treaty that the Chippewa are able to maintain aspects of
their culture and are able to continue to fight for the legitimization of all their treaty rights
in 2015.
Particular Section of Policy Selected for Analysis
The specific section of the July 29, 1837 treaty with the Chippewa being researched
is article five: hunting and fishing rights of the Chippewa. The section goes as follows, The

RESEARCH PAPER

privilege of hunting, fishing, and gathering the 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 (Satz, 1994, p. 156).
Underlying Values, Theories, Assumptions
Values shown in this policy include money, land, and rights. Money is often used as
the, cure-all, for the treaty issues, and in this treaty alone, annual lump sums of money
and tobacco are offered for past discrepancies and ceded land. Money was also used to fund
the building of blacksmith shops, schools, and other mainstream establishments settlers
used. Tribes did not utilize these institutions at the time, and their implementation was a
prime example of the assimilation efforts that were started around that time.
A distrust of, half-breeds, is also apparent in this treaty, as all of their benefits are
controlled by two men named Daniel P. Bushnell and Miles M. Vineyard, whereas other
members do not have this extra step of monitoring to go through (Satz, 1994, p. 156). A
strong desire for tribe-owned lands is also very apparent, as the lengthiest portion of the
treaty is defining what areas the tribe is allowed to control and what areas the government
then inherited.
An assumption made is that tribes could equate their lands with monetary value,
and that they wanted to give up their lands in the first place. It was assumed that tribal
members had more use for money than land back then, making the government appear
generous for their allotment of annual payments. Another assumption was that the
Chippewa knew the full ramifications of what they were signing. Despite language barriers,
it was assumed that the tribe and its members knew exactly what they were signing away,

RESEARCH PAPER

when in fact it has been found that the Chippewa thought the government would just be
leasing their lands, rather than taking them for good (Relations).
Analysis of the Selected Portion
Eligibility

Members enrolled in the Chippewa tribe and its related bands (Bois Forte, Fond du

Lac, Grand Portage, etc.) are eligible for the rights listed in this treaty. To be enrolled,
members have to prove lineage with blood quantum, and have at least a quarter Chippewa
blood. In 1837, half-breeds, as they were called, were eligible for benefits (mostly
monetary), but were not allowed to get their own payouts from the treaty, but rather had a
representative that doled out all of their earnings.
Provisions

The provisions included the cessation of numerous lands from the Chippewa in

exchange for annual rations including,

Nine thousand five hundred dollars, to be paid in money, nineteen thousand
dollars, to be delivered in goods, three thousand dollars for establishing three
blacksmith shops, supporting the blacksmiths, and furnishing them with iron and
steel, one thousand dollars for farmers, and for supplying them and the Indians,
with implements of labor, with grain or seed; and whatever else may be necessary
to enable them to carry on their agricultural pursuits, two thousand dollars in
provisions, and five hundred dollars in tobacco, for a period of twenty years (Satz,
1994, p.p. 155).
Some of the money was used to pay off the debts the tribe owed to fur hunters, and the rest
was allotted to the tribe. With these rations, the Chippewa still maintained the right to

RESEARCH PAPER

hunt, fish, and gather, upon the lands, the rivers and the lakes included in the territory
ceded, a right that is still disputed today (Satz, 1994, p. 156).
Money was used as it is the most common and easiest form of payment to do.
Alternative options could have included preservation of the Chippewas lifestyle by letting
them continue to use the land, and the government leasing the land they were not using.
Trade in other goods could have been utilized as well, as the tribe did not have much use
for money, except to interact and trade with settlers.
Delivery
The provisions and tobacco to be delivered at the same time with the goods, and
the money to be paid; which time or times, as well as the place or places where they are to
be delivered, shall be fixed upon under the direction of the President of the United States
(Satz, 1994, p. 155). Treaty days, were often held on the anniversary of the treaty signing
to deliver these goods and payments to tribe members. The payments were often given by
a bureaucratic outsider who literally had members line up to get their payments. Given that
there are many members, allocations were often small and unsatisfactory. This was done as
a way of monitoring and controlling how the money was given to the tribe, and,
subsequently, how it was used. Alternatives could have included giving the money to the
tribes to figure out how to allocate it, and doing smaller payments over a longer period of
time so the members did not have to wait until one specific day to get their earnings. An
alternative option given to the tribe was to appropriate a portion of their funds to the
establishment of schools, but this option was not utilized. Blacksmith shops were supposed
to be implemented as well, under the supervision of the Superintendent of Indian Affairs,
but it is unclear if these shops were ever constructed.

RESEARCH PAPER

10

Funding

The federal government provided funding for allocations. Alternatives could include

the state government pitching in, but at the time, the federal government made the most
sense. This funding was likely raised by citizens tax contributions at the time.
Summary

The 1837 Pine Treaty was an exchange between the Chippewa tribe and the U.S.

government at the time. Rights to property, reimbursements, and preservation of certain

parts of life were all discussed and agreed upon (at least in theory, as there have been
claims otherwise by the tribe) by the tribe and the government representatives at the time.
The treaty was largely to get land from the tribe, and that is what was accomplished.
Conclusion
As has been stated, Native American tribes have had a complicated history with the
United States government, especially when it comes to preserving their culture. There have
been numerous treaties, laws, and policies involving the many rights tribes fight for, and
hunting and fishing rights are not immune to this. Because of the 1837 Pine Treaty the
Chippewa tribe has fishing and hunting rights guaranteed to them, even if the citizens of
the area do not always support them. Maintaining tribes rich histories is a never-ending
job, but with more legislation and attention paid to these issues things are finally looking
up for tribes and their freedom. Current international legislation, like the United Nations
Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, is providing a framework for indigenous
rights and how to maintain and protect them (Garrott, 2013). If the U.S. were to sign on to
these policies, tribes would be granted the full rights they deserve and be able to continue
their legacies and heritage with the future generations

RESEARCH PAPER

11

References
Conover, F. K. (1908). Wisconsin reports 136: cases determined in the supreme court of
Wisconsin. Chicago, IL: Callaghan and Company.
Garrott, S. A. (2013). New ways to fulfill old promises: Native American hunting and fishing
rights as intangible cultural property. Oregon Law Review, 92, 571-1127.
http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.uwec.edu/hottopics/lnacademic/?verb=sr&csi=1
39192&sr=TITLE(New+Ways+to+Fulfill+Old+Promises%3A+Native+American+Hu
nting+and+Fishing+Rights+as+Intangible+Cultural+Property)%2BAND%2BDATE%
2BIS%2B2013
Jimenez, J. (2010). Social policy and social change: toward the creation of social and
economic justice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications INC.
Laws of Wisconsin (1927). Chapter 245. (No. 48 A)
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/1927/related/acts/245.pdf
Relations: Chippewa & Ojibwe Treaties. Treaties Matter. Retrieved from:
http://treatiesmatter.org/treaties/land/1837-ojibwe-dakota
Satz, R. N. (1994). Chippewa treaty rights (Vol. 79). Madison, WI: Wisconsin Academy of

Sciences, Arts and Letters

Waasa Inaabidaa: We Look In All Directions Website. (n.d.). Ojibwe.

Retrieved from: http://www.ojibwe.org/home/episode1_timeline.html