Opinion ID: 1592875
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: What power does the state possess to limit the exercise of fishing rights?

Text: Even though the 1854 treaty granted the Chippewa the right to continue fishing in Lake Superior, such a grant of rights does not foreclose the state from exercising police power to control fishing in Lake Superior even by Indians who claim fishing rights under that treaty. In United States v. Winans [34] and Tulee v. Washington, [35] the supreme court held that even when the Indians were fishing pursuant to certain treaty rights, the state could exercise its power to preserve fish and game within its jurisdiction. Although it is true that in Winans and Tulee the treaty right conferred to the Indians was common with the rights of other citizens of the state, in Kake Village v. Egan, [36] the court extended the Tulee rule to off-reservation fishing of Indians granted exclusive treaty rights. Exclusive means treaty rights accruing only to Indians. Appellants do not claim the right to fish Lake Superior exclusive of non-Indians. We conclude that on remand the state should be given the opportunity to prove that the regulations allegedly violated by appellants are reasonable and necessary for the preservation of fish in the state of Wisconsin. [37] The state must show that the regulations which it seeks to enforce against the Chippewa are reasonable and necessary to prevent a substantial depletion of the fish supply. On remand the state should also have the opportunity to show that these regulations, as applied to appellants, are necessary in the exercise of other valid police powers. The circuit court suggested, for example, that the regulations relating to the marking and placement of gill nets might be required to protect boaters on Lake Superior. Under the rule of Winans, Tulee, Kake and Puyallup, such an interest would be valid. A further consideration in determining whether the acts allegedly committed by appellants were protected by the 1854 treaty is whether the manner and location of fishing in the present cases is consistent with the type of fishing done by the Chippewa in 1854. Even if fishing rights are granted by treaty, those rights do not allow the Indians to fish however and wherever they like. As pertinent here, the treaty grants extend to the waters of Lake Superior as were used by the Chippewa at the time the treaty was agreed to, those waters being primarily adjacent to the Red Cliff and Bad River reservations. The methods of gathering such fish must also reasonably conform to the aboriginal methods and should not be extended to modern methods not intended by the 1854 treaty. By the Court. Orders reversed and causes remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. HALLOWS, C. J. ( concurring ). I concur with the majority opinion except for the take-back provisions on the exercise of the Indians' fishing rights. First, the majority opinion states to the Indians you have your historic and traditional fishing rights, but the state of Wisconsin who did not grant you those rights in the first place is going to regulate them. The regulation of the Indians' rights to fish could reduce them to the status of privileges of the white inhabitants of Wisconsin. I cannot agree that the needs of the white inhabitants of Wisconsin must determine the extent of the Indians' fishing rights. Nor can I agree that the methods of fishing by the Indians must be by aboriginal methods. The Indians should be allowed a spinning rod as well as a bone hook or a spear. The following memorandum was filed March 2, 1972.