Why Are We Involved With Treaty Lawsuits?

by Mark Rotz

I was recently asked by a young person (6th or 7th grader), "Why does you want to take away the Indians' right to hunt and fish on their reservations?" It reminded me of the need to state our position, and educate the public about what we are attempting to accomplish by being involved with Indian treaty lawsuits in Minnesota.

The simple answer to the student's question, and our objective, is that we are not trying to take away anyone's right to hunt and fish. We support a state constitutional amendment to guarantee that right to both Indian and non-Indian. In fact, rather than proactively trying to take someone's rights away, we are defending the rights of private citizens against lawsuits filed by the Indians against us.

We want to uphold the treaties made between Indians and the federal government. We believe these lawsuits are an attempt to break the treaties by the Indian governments. The dispute is over interpretation and understanding of the treaties. The Indians believe that the treaties guaranteed them a permanent right to hunt, fish, and gather without regard for state conservation laws. We believe that the treaties provided them with a temporary privilege to hunt, fish and gather and that the privilege has been lawfully and morally ended.

Remember, we chose not to oppose the Indians on a confrontational or violent manner as has happened in other parts of the country. We chose to stand up for what we believe in a legal, lawful, and universally approved manner. By supporting the landowners in the Mille Lacs treaty case, we are lawfully defending the interests of private citizens in this case. We have not done anything unlawful or immoral. We believe Indians should continue to have the right to hunt and fish. That our conservation laws are intended to protect the public safety and conserve the wildlife for all citizens equally, and they should apply to all citizens equally.

Remember what the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals said when they gave the Landowners intervention as full parties to this lawsuit. They said that the Landowners have legitimate and legally protectable interests in this case. Their interests may not be protected by any other party to the case. The outcome of this case could have an impact on private property rights. Even if the treaty right is not found to extend to private property, the possible depletion of fish and game in the area could have an impact on property values. Therefore the Landowners must be allowed to protect those interests.

Clearly the 8th Circuit recognized the magnitude of this lawsuit. How can we be criticized for standing up for our legally protectable rights and interests? Should we have been expected to stand by and not defend ourselves when we believe we are lawfully correct in our interpretation of the treaties and facts surrounding this case?

Phase I of the Mille Lacs Treaty Case was to determine if there was, in fact, a special treaty right that continues to exist. We lost that part of the case at the District Court level. We intend to appeal that decision as soon as Phase II is completed. Recent court decisions strengthen our belief that we shall be successful.

Phase II of the lawsuit has to do with the specifics of what this treaty right means. How will the fish and game be divided between Indians and non-Indians? What methods of harvest will be allowed tribal members? How much can their treaty right be regulated by the State and so on? This phase is often called the allocation phase.

It is the Landowner's goal to try to minimize the negative effects this treaty right will have upon fish and game stocks, as well as property values and local economies that are dependent on proper management of our natural resources. These treaty rights are not created in a vacuum. When you grant any group special or different rights, you are infringing on the individual constitutional rights of others.

Several defenses have been put forth by the Landowners to accomplish the goal of minimizing the impact of the treaty privilege, as outlined by the court case update. When the appeal of Phase I is completed, we are confident the court will find there was no permanent right retained by the Indians and that the court will not impose a system of apartheid upon the citizens of Minnesota.