DOCSLIB.ORG

582 Governor Motion for Summary Judgment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
582 Governor Motion for Summary Judgment Case 1:15-cv-00850-PLM-PJG ECF No. 582 filed 03/18/19 PageID.9619 Page 1 of 73 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION LITTLE TRAVERSE BAY BANDS OF No. 1:15-cv-850 ODAWA INDIANS, a federally recognized Indian tribe, HON. PAUL L. MALONEY Plaintiffs, v GRETCHEN WHITMER, Governor of the State of Michigan, et al. Defendants. BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF THE GOVERNOR’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF HISTORICAL ISSUES Dana Nessel Attorney General Jaclyn Shoshana Levine (P58938) Kelly M. Drake (P59071) Laura R. LaMore (P79943) Assistant Attorneys General Attorneys for Governor Whitmer Environment, Natural Resources, and Agriculture Division P.O. Box 30755 Lansing, MI 48909 (517) 335-7664 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Dated: March 18, 2019 Case 1:15-cv-00850-PLM-PJG ECF No. 582 filed 03/18/19 PageID.9620 Page 2 of 73 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Table of Contents ............................................................................................................ i Index of Authorities ...................................................................................................... iv Concise Statement of Issues Presented ..................................................................... viii Controlling or Most Appropriate Authority ............................................................... viii Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1 Nature of the Reservation Dispute ............................................................................... 2 Statement of Facts ......................................................................................................... 4 The 1836 Treaty Council..................................................................................... 4 The Original Terms of the 1836 Treaty ............................................................. 7 The Senate Amendments to the 1836 Treaty .................................................... 8 The Inter-Treaty Period ...................................................................................... 9 A New Treaty .................................................................................................... 11 The 1855 Treaty Council................................................................................... 12 The 1855 Treaty ................................................................................................ 16 The 1870s Acts .................................................................................................. 18 After The 1870s Acts ......................................................................................... 20 Legal Standard ............................................................................................................ 21 Indian Canons of Construction ................................................................................... 21 Argument ..................................................................................................................... 22 I. The 1855 Treaty did not create an Indian reservation for the political predecessors to the Tribe. ................................................................................. 22 A. The plain language of the 1855 Treaty did not create an Indian reservation. ............................................................................................. 22 i Case 1:15-cv-00850-PLM-PJG ECF No. 582 filed 03/18/19 PageID.9621 Page 3 of 73 1. The 1855 Treaty did not “set apart” lands. ................................ 23 a. Article I did not remove lands from the public domain to create an Indian reservation. .......................... 23 b. The 1855 Treaty is missing operative language used to create Indian reservations. .................................. 29 i. The 1854 Treaty of La Pointe ................................ 30 ii. The 1864 Saginaw Treaty ...................................... 31 2. The 1855 Treaty did not require lands to be used for Indian purposes. .......................................................................... 33 3. The 1855 Treaty did not subject lands to ongoing federal superintendence. .......................................................................... 35 B. The history surrounding the 1855 Treaty reveals that the parties did not intend to create an Indian reservation. ........................ 36 1. The bands had an explicit strategy to use individual land ownership and state citizenship to remain in Michigan, which the federal government encouraged. ................................ 37 2. The parties agreed to unrestricted, individual land ownership by band members. ...................................................... 39 3. The parties agreed to a process that allowed band members to select the best lands available. ............................... 42 4. The parties agreed to end federal oversight over lands selected under the treaty when patents issued. ......................... 45 5. The parties discussed reservations, but never in connection with the survey townships listed in Article I. .......... 47 II. If the 1855 Treaty created an Indian reservation for the political predecessors to the Tribe, that reservation ceased to exist under the treaty’s terms. ................................................................................................... 49 III. If the 1855 Treaty created an Indian reservation for the political predecessors to the Tribe that did not expire under the treaty’s terms, Congress disestablished that reservation in the 1870s. .................................. 51 A. The Solem test. ....................................................................................... 51 ii Case 1:15-cv-00850-PLM-PJG ECF No. 582 filed 03/18/19 PageID.9622 Page 4 of 73 B. Congress expressed its clear intent to disestablish the reservation in the language of the 1870s Acts. ..................................... 52 C. The 1870s Acts were contemporaneously understood to disestablish the reservation. .................................................................. 55 D. Subsequent history demonstrates that a reservation does not exist today. .............................................................................................. 57 1. Indians do not comprise a majority of the population. .............. 57 2. Indians do not hold the majority of lands. .................................. 59 3. People do not see the area as a reservation. ............................... 60 4. State and local government exercise jurisdiction. ...................... 61 Conclusion and Relief Requested ................................................................................ 63 Certificate of Compliance Concerning Word Limit .................................................... 64 iii Case 1:15-cv-00850-PLM-PJG ECF No. 582 filed 03/18/19 PageID.9623 Page 5 of 73 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES Page Cases Alaska v. Native Vill. of Venetie Tribal Gov’t, 522 U.S. 520 (1998) ............................................................................................ 34, 35 Antoine v. Washington, 420 U.S. 194 (1975) .................................................................................................. 21 Barker v. Harvey, 181 U.S. 481 (1901) .................................................................................................. 23 Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) .................................................................................................. 21 Choctaw Nation v. United States, 318 U.S. 423 (1943) ............................................................................................ 21, 22 DeCoteau v. Dist. County Court for Tenth Judicial Dist., 420 U.S. 425 (1975) ...................................................................................... 22, 52, 54 Donnelly v. United States, 228 U.S. 243 (1913) .................................................................................................... 4 Fenn v. Holme, 62 U.S. 481 (1858) .................................................................................................... 26 Hagen v. Utah, 510 U.S. 399 (1994) .................................................................................. 3, 23, 52, 53 Irvine v. Marshall, 61 U.S. 558 (1857) .................................................................................................... 27 Keweenaw Bay Indian Cmty. v. State of Michigan, 784 F. Supp. 418 (W.D. Mich. 1991) ........................................................................ 30 Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986) .................................................................................................. 21 Mattz v. Arnett, 412 U.S. 481 (1973) .................................................................................................. 54 Minnesota v. Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians, 526 U.S. 172 (1999) .................................................................................................. 21 iv Case 1:15-cv-00850-PLM-PJG ECF No. 582 filed 03/18/19 PageID.9624 Page 6 of 73 N. Oil & Gas, Inc. v. Moen, 808 F.3d 373 (8th Cir. 2015) .................................................................................... 13 Nebraska v. Parker, 136 S. Ct. 1072 (2016) ........................................................................................ 54, 55 Nw. Bands of Shoshone Indians v. United States, 324 U.S. 335 (1945) .................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Michigan's Tribal Economies
    Michigan State University College of Law INDIGENOUS LAW & POLICY CENTER OCCASIONAL PAPER SERIES Michigan’s Emerging Tribal Economies: A Presentation to the Michigan House of Representatives Jake J. Allen, 2L, MSU College of Law Hannah Bobee, 2L, MSU College of Law Kathryn E. Fort, Staff Attorney, Indigenous Law and Policy Center Bryan Newland, 3L, MSU College of Law Wenona T. Singel, Associate Director, Indigenous Law and Policy Center Indigenous Law & Policy Center Working Paper 2007-07 April 13, 2007 Michigan's Emerging Tribal Economies I. Introduction II. Understanding Tribal Sovereignty III. Michigan Tribal Economies, Past and Present IV. Resources 2 I. Introduction The territory now known as the state of Michigan has been populated by indigenous peoples who have governed themselves since time immemorial. Today, Michigan has twelve Indian tribes recognized by the federal government as exercising sovereignty. The 2000 Census reported that Michigan has approximately 125,000 people who identify as entirely or partially American Indian.1 Of those who identified solely as American Indian, Michigan has the twelfth largest population nationwide and the fourth largest American Indian population east of the Mississippi River. Each of the Tribes in Michigan exercise of the powers of self-government within the land defined as Indian country under federal law. Indian country is a legal term of art defined by federal statute, and it includes all lands within reservation boundaries, all allotments, and all dependent Indian communities.2 Trust lands, or lands which the federal government holds in trust for the benefit of Indian tribes, also constitute Indian country.3 In addition to Indian country, another term of art with significance for Indian self- governance is the concept of a service area.
    [Show full text]
  • Fighting the Lone Wolf Mentality: Twenty-First Century Reflections on the Paradoxical State of American Indian Law
    Tulsa Law Review Volume 38 Issue 1 Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock: One Hundred Years Later Fall 2002 Fighting the Lone Wolf Mentality: Twenty-First Century Reflections on the Paradoxical State of American Indian Law Bryan H. Wildenthal Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/tlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Bryan H. Wildenthal, Fighting the Lone Wolf Mentality: Twenty-First Century Reflections on the arP adoxical State of American Indian Law, 38 Tulsa L. Rev. 113 (2013). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/tlr/vol38/iss1/22 This Native American Symposia Articles is brought to you for free and open access by TU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Tulsa Law Review by an authorized editor of TU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Wildenthal: Fighting the Lone Wolf Mentality: Twenty-First Century Reflection FIGHTING THE LONE WOLF MENTALITY: TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY REFLECTIONS ON THE PARADOXICAL STATE OF AMERICAN INDIAN LAW@ Bryan H. Wildenthal* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. 1999: THREE CASES, THREE COURTS, THREE SOVEREIGNS ............. 113 II. THE LONE W OLF M ENTALITY .............................................................. 118 III. THE H UNTING OF LONE W OLF ............................................................. 123 IV. THE LONE WOLF MENTALITY RISES AGAIN: THE REHNOUIST ERA OF AMERICAN INDIAN LAW ........................... 124 V. 2001: Two CASES, ONE COURT, NO JUSTICE ...................................... 135 VI. WHERE Do WE GO FROM HERE? ........................ ........................... .. .. 144 I. 1999: THREE CASES, THREE COURTS, THREE SOVEREIGNS In 1999, as the turn of the twenty-first century loomed, I planned to write a reflective essay on the state of American Indian law, a field in which I have been privileged to teach (but mostly, learn) since 1996.' I thought I would use as my © 2002 Bryan H.
    [Show full text]
  • Official Guide to Native American Communities in Wisconsin
    Official Guide to Native American Communities in Wisconsin www.NativeWisconsin.com Shekoli (Hello), elcome to Native Wisconsin! We are pleased to once again provide you with our much anticipated NATIVE WISCONSIN MAGAZINE! WAs always, you will find key information regarding the 11 sovereign tribes in the great State of Wisconsin. From history and culture to current events and new amenities, Native Wisconsin is the unique experience visitors are always looking for. As our tribal communities across WI continue to expand and improve, we want to keep you informed on what’s going on and what’s in store for the future. With a new vision in place, we plan to assist each and every beautiful reservation to both improve what is there, and to create new ideas to work toward. Beyond their current amenities, which continue to expand, we must diversify tribal tourism and provide new things to see, smell, touch, taste, and hear. Festivals, culinary arts, song and dance, storytelling, Lacrosse, new tribal visitor centers, even a true hands on Native Wisconsin experience! These are just a few of the elements we want to provide to not only give current visitors what they’ve been waiting for, but to entice new visitors to come see us. We are always looking to our visitors for input, so please let us know how you would like to experience NATIVE WISCONSIN in the future, and we will make it happen for you. We are looking forward to 2015 and beyond. With the return of this magazine, a new website, our annual conference in Mole Lake, and a new online TV show in development, things are getting exciting for all of us.
    [Show full text]
  • Chequamegon Bay and Its Communities I Ashland Bayfield La Pointe a Brief History 1659-1883
    Chequamegon Bay And Its Communities I Ashland Bayfield LaPointe A Brief Hi story 1659-1883 Chequamegon Bay And Its Communities I Ashland Bayfield La Pointe A Brief History 1659-1883 Lars Larson PhD Emeriti Faculty University of Wisconsin-Whitewater CHEQUAMEGON BAY Chequamegon, sweet lovely bay, Upon thy bosom softly sway. In gentle swells and azure bright. Reflections of the coming night; Thy wooded shores of spruce and pine. Forever hold thee close entwine. Thy lovely isles and babbling rills. Whose music soft my soul enthrills; What wondrous power and mystic hands. Hath wrought thy beach of golden sands. What artist's eye mid painter's brush. Hath caught thy waters as they rush. And stilled them all and then unfurled. The grandest picture of the world— So fair, so sweet to look upon. Thy beauteous bay, Chequamegon. Whitewater Wisconsin 2005 Table of Contents Acknowledgements 3 The Chequamegon Bay Historians 4 Odes to Chequamegon Bay 7 Introduction 13 Chapter 1—An Overview of Wisconsin History to 1850 26 Chapter 2—Chequamegon Bay and La Pointe 1659-1855 44 Chapter 3—The Second Era of Resource Exploitation 82 Chapter 4—Superior 1853-1860 92 Chapter 5—Ashland 1854-1860 112 Chapter 6—Bayfield 1856-1860 133 Chapter 7—Bayfield 1870-1883 151 Chapter 8—Ashland 1870-1883 186 Chapter 9—The Raikoad Land Grants: Were The Benefits Worth The Cost? 218 Bibliographies 229 Introduction 230 Wisconsin History 23 4 Chequamegon Bay and La Pointe 241 Second Era of Resource Exploitation 257 Superior 264 Ashland 272 Bayfield 293 Introduction 1860-1870 301 Railroad Land Grants 304 Acknowledgements I am deeply indebted to the staffs of the Andersen Library of the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater, and the Library of the State Historical Society of Wisconsin, mid to the Register of Deeds of Bayfield County, for their indispensable assistance mid support in the preparation of this study.
    [Show full text]
  • Outline of United States Federal Indian Law and Policy
    Outline of United States federal Indian law and policy The following outline is provided as an overview of and topical guide to United States federal Indian law and policy: Federal Indian policy – establishes the relationship between the United States Government and the Indian Tribes within its borders. The Constitution gives the federal government primary responsibility for dealing with tribes. Law and U.S. public policy related to Native Americans have evolved continuously since the founding of the United States. David R. Wrone argues that the failure of the treaty system was because of the inability of an individualistic, democratic society to recognize group rights or the value of an organic, corporatist culture represented by the tribes.[1] U.S. Supreme Court cases List of United States Supreme Court cases involving Indian tribes Citizenship Adoption Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30 (1989) Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, 530 U.S. _ (2013) Tribal Ex parte Joins, 191 U.S. 93 (1903) Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49 (1978) Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30 (1989) South Dakota v. Bourland, 508 U.S. 679 (1993) Civil rights Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, 435 U.S. 191 (1978) United States v. Wheeler, 435 U.S. 313 (1978) Congressional authority Ex parte Joins, 191 U.S. 93 (1903) White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker, 448 U.S. 136 (1980) California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, 480 U.S. 202 (1987) South Dakota v. Bourland, 508 U.S. 679 (1993) United States v.
    [Show full text]
  • They Would Not Be Moved : the Chippewa Treaty of 1854 / Edmund
    N AUGUST, 1854, Commissioner of Indian Affairs George W. Manypenny directed Agent Henry C. Gil­ bert of Detroit to arrange a treaty council with the Chippewa Indians to extinguish their titles to certain lands at the head of Lake Superior. The agent was also to establish reservations as future homes for the Lake Superior bands living along the shores of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota. ^ THEY Gilbert, head of the Mackinac Agency which embraced afi the Indians in Michigan as wefi as the Lake Superior Chippewa, dispatched a special messenger by way of Chicago and St. Paul WOULD to his Minnesota counterpart, Agent David B. Herriman, at Crow Wing. Gilbert asked Herriman to bring to the council ground a delegation of Mississippi River Chippewa chiefs and headmen who also claimed ownership of the lands in question. The Mack­ NOT inac agent left Detroit on August 26 and arrived at La Pointe, Wisconsin, on September 1. Herriman joined him about two weeks later.- BE The tiny vifiage of La Pointe on Madeline Island, offshore from Bayfield, Wisconsin, was an appropriate setting for treaty talks. La Pointe had been a focal point for white settlement on Lake Superior since the zestful days of French fur traders and MOVED missionaries. Thirteen miles long and averaging three miles wide, Madeline is the largest of the Apostle Island chain. Set against clear blue waters and skies, its rugged beauty com­ «e?> mands admiration. Red and brown sandstone shores loom wild and bold, while pleasant hills and stately elms, pines, and cedars exude cool serenity. Before the founding of Superior, Wisconsin, and Duluth in 1853 and 1854, bustling little La Pointe, located on Madeline's southwestern tip, had been the only port of call The Chippewa on western Lake Superior.
    [Show full text]
  • One Hundred Third Congress of the United States of America
    S. 1357 One Hundred Third Congress of the United States of America AT THE SECOND SESSION Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, the twenty-fifth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-four An Act To reaffirm and clarify the Federal relationships of the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians and the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians as distinct federally recognized Indian tribes, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the ``Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians and the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians Act''. SEC. 2. FINDINGS. Congress finds the following: (1) The Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians and the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians are descendants of, and political successors to, signatories of the 1836 Treaty of Washington and the 1855 Treaty of Detroit. (2) The Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, and the Bay Mills Band of Chippewa Indians, whose members are also descendants of the signatories to the 1836 Treaty of Washington and the 1855 Treaty of Detroit, have been recog- nized by the Federal Government as distinct Indian tribes. (3) The Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians con- sists of at least 1,000 eligible members who continue to reside close to their ancestral homeland as recognized in the Little Traverse Reservation in the 1836 Treaty of Washington and 1855 Treaty of Detroit, which area is now known as Emmet and Charlevoix Counties, Michigan.
    [Show full text]
  • FAITH in PAPER the Ethnohistory and Litigation of Upper Great Lakes Indian Treaties # Charles E
    SUB Hamburg B/112744 FAITH IN PAPER The Ethnohistory and Litigation of Upper Great Lakes Indian Treaties # Charles E. Cleland WITH Bruce R. Greene, Marc Slonim, Nancy N. Cleland, Kathryn L. Tierney, Skip Durocher, and Brian Pierson THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN PRESS Ann Arbor Aagwonay, 275 Abbott, F. H., 255, 261 aboriginal title, 13 abrogation of treaties, 41 acculturation, 232 Act of 1843, 234 Act of 1846, 234 Act of 1871, 246, 247, 249, 252, 253 Act of July 4,1884, 280 Act of March 3, 1893, 256 Act of June 21, 1906, 257 Adams, J. C, 252 Adams, John Quincy, 151 Aishkebogekoshe (Flat Mouth), 107, 109, no Aitken, William, 119, 205 Bradley, George, 301 alewife, 90 Bradley, Joseph, 307 Allen, Edward, 305 Bresbois, Bernard, 119 allotment of land, 15, 16, 26, 84, 86, 199, 216-17, Z54> Brevoort, H. B., 146, 151 236, 238, Z47, 276-77, 280-82, 293, 296, 304, 309, Brewster, William, 64 314-16, 321 British period, 25 American Fur Company, 63—64, 118—19, 165, 181, 205 Brockway, William, 205, 223, 298, 318 Anderson, Marge, 139 Brooks, E. J., 304, 320 Andre brothers, 302, 304 Brothertowns (Munsee), 149, 150, 161 Anishnabe (Anishnabeg), 19, 20 Brown, Orlando, 186 Apokisigan (Smoking Mixture), 54, 65 Brunetti, Dominick, 147 Arnold, I. E., 302 Brunson, Alfred, 113 Arnold, J. E., 304 Buchanan, James, 267 Assagon (Little Ant), 84-85 Buckland, Romulus, 324-Z5 Assiginac (Blackbird), 59 Buffalo (Kechewaishke or Peshekee), 113, 121 Assinines, Edward, 212, 213, 317, 318, 319 Burket, George, 205 Atkins, J. D. C, 304 Bushnell, David, 108, no, 204 Awseneece (Small Stones), 206, 308 Butler, B.
    [Show full text]
  • Tribal Nations Issues and Perspectives
    GREAT LAKES REGIONAL COLLABORATION Tribal Nations Issues and Perspectives Version 1.0 April 26, 2005 The purpose of this document is to provide the GLRC Executive Committee and Strategy Teams with information on the nature of Tribal sovereignty, rights, and interests as they relate to Great Lakes environmental protection and natural resource conservation issues. The Framework document signed by the members of the GLRC noted that each Strategy Team should explicitly consider Tribal rights, interests, structure, and programs involved in its issue area and should identify priorities and strategies that relate to the health, welfare, and culture of Tribal communities. The Tribal Nations that signed the Framework have agreed to organize an ad hoc Tribal Caucus for the purposes of facilitating intertribal cooperation and coordinated participation in the GLRC processes. The Caucus prepared this document to help other GLRC participants better understand tribal governments and tribal communities so that the Great Lakes Protection and Restoration Strategy properly addresses and protects tribal needs. It is important to note that this report is not exhaustive in its scope or coverage, “legally” definitive, or representative of the “official” views any one Tribal Nation or tribal government. As this document is relatively general in nature, the Tribal Caucus welcomes inquiries from the Executive Committee and Strategy Teams regarding further details, supporting documentation, clarification, or additional resources and information. The Tribal Caucus anticipates an on-going dialogue on tribal issues and perspectives at all levels of the GLRC process. It hopes questions will be routinely addressed within the Strategy Teams themselves by individuals associated with Tribal Nations who are members of each Team, as well as by those who regularly are involved at the Executive Committee level.
    [Show full text]
  • Foundation Document, Isle Royale National Park, Keweenaw County
    NATIONAL PARK SERVICE • U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Foundation Document Isle Royale National Park Keweenaw County, Michigan January 2016 Foundation Document II Isle Royale National Park Contents Mission of the National Park Service 1 Introduction 2 Part 1: Core Components 3 Brief Description of the Park 3 Park Purpose 6 Park Significance 7 Fundamental Resources and Values 8 Other Important Resources and Values 11 Interpretive Themes 13 Part 2: Dynamic Components 14 Special Mandates and Administrative Commitments 14 Special Mandates Established by Treaty Specific to Isle Royale National Park 14 Special Mandates Established by Federal Law for Isle Royale National Park 15 Additional Jurisdiction Stipulations 19 Administrative Commitments 21 Assessment of Planning and Data Needs 24 Analysis of Fundamental Resources and Values 24 Identification of Key Issues and Associated Planning and Data Needs 46 Planning and Data Needs 46 Part 3: Contributors 56 Isle Royale National Park 56 NPS Midwest Region 56 Other NPS Staff 56 Partners 56 February 2011 Meeting and Workshop Participants 57 November 2011 Meeting and Workshop Participants 57 November 2012 Wilderness Character Narrative Workshop 58 Preparers 58 Reviewers 59 Appendixes 60 Appendix A: Enabling Legislation and Legislative Acts for Isle Royale National Park 60 Appendix B: Related Federal Legislation, Regulations, and Executive Orders 64 Appendix C: Legislative History – Isle Royale National Park 67 Appendix D: Wilderness Character Narrative 75 Appendix E: Federal and State Laws with Relevance to or Direct Bearing on Isle Royale National Park 85 Foundation Document IV Isle Royale National Park V Foundation Document Isle Royale National Park Mission of the National Park Service The National Park Service (NPS) preserves unimpaired the natural and cultural resources and values of the national park system for the enjoyment, education, and inspiration of this and future generations.
    [Show full text]
  • Download The
    1854 Treaty n September O30th, 1854, the Lake Superior and Authority Mississippi Chippewa (or Ojibwe) signed an agreement granting the United States government use of what is now northeastern Minnesota. As part of the treaty, the Chippewa retained rights to continue their way of life and use these lands for hunting, f ishing and gathering. “And such of them as reside in the territory hereby ceded shall have the right to hunt and f ish therein until otherwise ordered by the President.” -Article 11, Treaty of La Pointe, 1854 1854 Ceded Territory 1854 Treaty Authority Grand Portage Bois Forte 4428 Haines Road Cook Lake Duluth, MN 55811 St. Louis Reservation 218-722-8907 County 1854 Ceded Territory Cover photo by Travis Novitsky Fond du Lac 1-800-775-8799 preserving, protecting, and enhancing Aitkin www.1854treatyauthority.org Carlton treaty rights, natural and cultural Minnesota Pine 1854 Treaty Authority Follow 1854 on resources in the 1854 Ceded Territory 2020 Resource Management Division 1854 Treaty The primary function of the Resource Management Division is to manage the off-reservation hunting, trapping, fishing, and gathering seasons for Authority Bois Forte and Grand Portage band members. Biologists set seasons, issue permits, collect harvest information, and prepare summary reports. he 1854 Treaty Authority is an inter- The Resource Management Division also works in Ttribal natural resource management partnership with federal, tribal, state, county, city, agency that protects and implements and non-government agencies on a variety of natural the off-reservation hunting, fishing and resource projects due to the shared resources and gathering rights of the Bois Forte Band dual management jurisdiction within the 1854 Ceded Territory.
    [Show full text]
  • Grand Portage National Monument AND/OR COMMON
    Form No. 10-306 (Rev. 10-74) UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OE THE INTERIOR NATIONAL PARK SERVICE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES INVENTORY -- NOMINATION FORM FOR FEDERAL PROPERTIES SEE INSTRUCTIONS IN HOW TO COMPLETE NATIONAL REGISTER FORMS TYPE ALL ENTRIES -- COMPLETE APPLICABLE SECTIONS | NAME HISTORIC Grand Portage National Monument AND/OR COMMON STREET & NUMBER , 3& s "M { N, K . P.O. BOX 666 NOT FOR PUBLICATION CITY. TOWN CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT Grand Marais -2. VICINITY OF 8th STATE CODE COUNTY CODE Minnesota 27 Cook 0 . 31 HCLASSIFICATION CATEGORY OWNERSHIP STATUS PRESENT USE ^DISTRICT ^PUBLIC ^.OCCUPIED —AGRICULTURE ^.MUSEUM _BUILDING(S) —PRIVATE —UNOCCUPIED —COMMERCIAL ^LPARK —STRUCTURE —BOTH ?_WORK IN PROGRESS —EDUCATIONAL —PRIVATE RESIDENCE —SITE PUBLIC ACQUISITION ACCESSIBLE —ENTERTAINMENT —RELIGIOUS —OBJECT —IN PROCESS X.YES: RESTRICTED _ GOVERNMENT —SCIENTIFIC —BEING CONSIDERED — YES: UNRESTRICTED —INDUSTRIAL —TRANSPORTATION —NO —MILITARY —OTHER: AGENCY REGIONAL HEADQUARTERS:V//ap/>//ca6/e,; _____Midwest Regional office, National Park Service STREET & NUMBER 1709 Jackson Street CITY. TOWN STATE Omaha VICINITY OF Nebraska COURTHOUSE. REGISTRY OF DEEDS. ETC. Mjdwest Regional office, National Park Service STREET & NUMBER 1709 Jackson Street CITY, TOWN Omaha I REPRESENTATION IN EXISTING SURVEYS TITLE List of Classified Structures DATE X. FEDERAL _STATE —COUNTY —LOCAL DEPOSITORY FOR National Park Service SURVEY RECORDS ^ s< Tjepartment of the Interior, Midwest Regional Office CITY. TOWN STATE Omaha Nebraska DESCRIPTION CONDITION CHECK ONE CHECK ONE ^-EXCELLENT _DETERiORATED —UNALTERED X_ORIGINAL SITE X_GOOD X.RUINS JJLALTERED _MOVED DATE_____ X.FAIR X.UNEXPOSED ~~- DESCRIBE THE PRESENT AND ORIGINAL (IF KNOWN) PHYSICAL APPEARANCE Grand Portage was designated a national historic site in 1951• Nine years later Congress established Grand Portage National Monument.
    [Show full text]