Deer Hunters Should Care About "Treaty Rights"! Impacts of Band Treaty Hunting Code Could Be Dramatic...

by Joe Fellegy

While fishing topics like spearing, gill netting, and commercial fishing have Minnesotans wondering what comes next on Mille Lacs and scores of other lakes in the 1837 treaty area, there are equally important issues facing deer hunters and state wildlife managers.

How important are these deer hunting issues? If the Mille Lacs Band were awarded a significant share of the resource and opted to harvest much of that share - a real possibility - numbers of antlerless permits for non-Band hunters in affected management units could be reduced proportionately. State seasons and harvest quotas could shrink, with state wildlife managers having to trim the state's deer take in certain areas in order to compensate for Band harvest. Minnesota deer hunters would pay a price!

Theoretically at least, and depending on how Band "managers" set the specifics, a single Band hunter could harvest dozens, or even hundreds, of deer over the 4-month Band season.

Other concerns about the Mille Lacs Band Draft Code's deer hunting provisions center on issues ranging from safety factors to ethical considerations, from shooting hours to methods of take - not to mention the numbers of deer per Band hunter that could be taken if provisions of the Draft Code were to be applied literally; and not to mention provisions for commercial deer harvest!

The Mille Lacs Band's Draft Conservation Code, issued last Nov. 23, includes provisions for a Band season that would last from the day after Labor Day through Dec. 31, a 16-week season.

At this point, nobody knows for sure how resources would be allocated in Phase II of the Mille Lacs treaty trial. While the 50 percent figure used in Wisconsin is often linked to possibilities in the Minnesota ceded territory, some state officials and attorneys for the Landowners and Counties in the case insist that the figure should be lower here, and that it perhaps should be tied to need rather than to arbitrary percentages.

Minnesota DNR's response to the Band's Draft Code was coordinated by Ed Boggess of DNR's Section of Wildlife. He and his staff reviewed the provisions of the Band Code. Their concerns frequently echo those being sounded in the deer hunting community. At the time of publication, the DNR had not yet received the Band's response to the state's response to the Band's Draft Code.

Following are some of the "red flag" deer hunting issues involved in the Mille Lacs treaty case.

· The Mille Lacs Band's Draft Code contains no overall limit per member per season.

The Code allows the Band's DNR to issue "no more than two carcass tags at a time" (time unspecified) to a member. If Band regulations at a given time allowed two permits per day, a member could shoot 240 deer in a 120-day season, and add another 10 deer under his or her "Level One" commercial permit. (A "Level Two" commercial permit could allow for more than 10.) While nobody expects the foregoing scenario to play out fully - the final code could be more stringent - it does illustrate the likely open-ended nature of Band-regulated deer hunting in the 12-county ceded territory if the "treaty rights" march is not stopped in court.

· Non-Band antlerless permits would fluctuate according to the Band's share of the resource.

For example, if the state's wildlife managers felt that a harvest of 1,000 antlerless permits was the appropriate quota in the Mille Lacs Wildlife Management Area, and the Band decides to take its full share - say, for example, 50 percent - then the number of permits issued by the state to non-Band hunters would be reduced proportionately - to 500. In other words, in the state's deer management units, the state's overall target figures would remain the same, but those figures would now be divided between Band and non-Band hunters.

· "Where?" and "How many?" antlerless deer will be taken by the Band?

State wildlife managers are hoping that the Band will tailor its deer harvest regulations in accordance with the state's management units. They point out that whatever percentage the Band's share of the resource turns out to be, the Band's harvest should be regulated in a way that keeps total deer taken within the maximum harvest figures set in the state's management units. Management of the deer herd could become complicated unless Band regulations fit the state's management map. (Presumably, the state would set the numbers for overall harvest and the court would determine the percentages for Band and non-Band shares.)

· Impact of the "Wisconsin Bands" could be significant.

All sides in the Mille Lacs treaty case agree that if six Wisconsin Ojibwe bands are allowed to participate in fish and game harvests in Minnesota's 1837 treaty area, then harvest figures may actually reach the Mille Lacs Band's total resource allocation percentage, whatever that may turn out to be. (In Wisconsin it's 50 percent.)

· Different shooting hours.

In the Band's code, shooting hours extend from one hour before sunrise to one hour after sunset. Meanwhile, the state's hours are one-half hour before sunrise to sunset. (Last year, the Legislature extended archery hours to one-half hour after sunset, a move that is again being debated in the present legislature.) Differences between Band and State shooting hours could pose safety problems.

· Shining deer.

The Band's Draft Code states that [the Band] is "considering adopting provisions which will authorize the [Band's] Commissioner of Natural Resources to permit shining of deer in limited and highly controlled situations." State wildlife managers and non-Band deer hunters have problems with "shining," from both safety and conservation standpoints. Even when practiced in a fixed location with a controlled perimeter, and even if some of the safety considerations were addressed, the use of lights over a baited site would be very effective. This approach could be very detrimental in some instances, for example when wintering deer from a broad geographic area are concentrated. The effects of such hunting would be difficult to monitor since the impacts could be felt across different management units.

· The use of radios and motor vehicle equipment is not addressed in the Band's initial Code.

The Code did not rule out the use of radio equipment and motor vehicles to pursue deer.

· A four-month Band season raises safety concerns.

Band deer hunting would commence on the day after Labor Day in early September and run through December 31. Such a 16-week deer season would run concurrently with a variety of state hunting seasons. Other outdoor users would be in the woods during the Band deer hunting season.

· What about hunting on game refuges?

Occasionally, when deer populations are super high, the state opens game refuges otherwise closed to hunting. An example is St. Croix State Park. Another is Wild River State Park. Both parks are in the ceded territory. The state prefers to control hunter density in those places for safety reasons. The Mille Lacs Band's Draft Code failed to address the question of hunting on state refuge areas and how they would limit hunter densities.

· Band's code envisions deer baiting.

Baiting, which is not permitted by the state hunting regulations, is included in the Mille Lacs Band's draft code. In fact, in the provision for "highly controlled" shining, use of a bait pile is listed as a requirement. Minnesota deer hunters and wildlife managers generally regard baiting as a "too efficient" method of taking deer.

As with the fishing provisions of the Mille Lacs Band's Draft Conservation Code, the Code's deer hunting provisions emphasize differences at every point - different seasons, different regulations, different limits, and different standards and values.

Beyond impacts on the resource and its management, more social divisions and resentments would surely flow from an approach that features "two sets of rules" and "unequal rights."

Deer hunters are now realizing the value of the Landowner interveners in the court case. "We're in this thing to the end!" is a rallying cry that's bound to grow louder as the appeals process unfolds.