Thirty years of litigation and discussion among five Michigan Native American tribes, the United States and the state of Michigan over hunting, fishing and gathering rights reserved by the tribes under the 1836 Treaty of Washington drew to a close this month with the signature of U.S. District Judge Richard Enslen.

Over the past two years, stepped-up negotiations produced a settlement in a federal court consent decree, defining what opportunities the tribes will have to hunt, fish and gather on some of Michigan's lands.

"The process was arduous at times, but the outcome is the best-case scenario for the parties involved and for Michigan's natural resources," said Jim Ekdahl, Upper Peninsula field deputy and lead tribal negotiator for the Michigan Department of Natural Resources.

There are eight principal treaties that were signed between the United States and various Indian tribes between 1807 and 1842 that affect what is now the state of Michigan. In fact, you cannot set foot in this state without treading on treaty land.

One of the treaties, which was signed in 1836, resulted in the sale of thousands of acres of Indian land, in what would become Michigan, to the United States. However, at the time the land was sold, under treaty provisions the tribes reserved certain hunting, fishing and gathering rights.

"All previous Supreme Court decisions have ruled that the passage of time cannot erode treaty rights," said Chris Dobyns, special assistant attorney general, who was the DNR's lead counsel during the negotiations. "Treaties with Indian tribes have been determined by the courts to be the supreme law of the land, so state governments and judges are bound by them."

That is why the state of Michigan chose, in part, not to try the 1836 Treaty rights case in court.

Two neighboring states, Wisconsin and Minnesota, both went to court, claiming the tribes had not retained hunting and fishing authority. Both states' cases failed, allowing expansive opportunities for tribes to hunt, fish and gather both for personal use and commercial sale.

"The risks of litigation appeared significant," Dobyns said. "The responsible and prudent course of action was to negotiate a settlement out of court in a manner that protected the interests of the citizens of Michigan and its resources, but also addressed the needs of the 1836 tribes in preserving their traditional subsistence activities."

A fair and much more acceptable outcome for everyone was the result.

The tribes involved in the 1836 settlement are the Bay Mills Indian Community and the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians in the U.P. and the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians and the Little Traverse Bay Band of Odawa Indians in the Lower Peninsula.

The consent decree defines the extent of the treaty rights and establishes how, when and where the tribes will exercise those rights.

The agreement recognizes the right of the tribes to practice traditional subsistence use of natural resources, or, in other words, to utilize natural resources in living off the land.

In some cases, the tribes can spear and use small nets to catch fish -- means of take which may not be available to state-licensed anglers. The tribes may have some expanded seasons and bag limits as well.

The tribes can exercise their rights under the decree to hunt, fish and gather on tribal lands or state lands, and hunt and fish on lands enrolled under the Commercial Forest Act, if the CFA-enrolled tract is 1,000 acres or more in aggregate. Tribal hunting and fishing is not allowed on private property, with the exception of these larger CFA lands, much like state-licensed hunters.

The tribes also will not be able to hunt and fish outside of state seasons on CFA lands under 1,000 acres unless they get permission from the landowner, or to hunt or fish on private land without owner permission.

But can the resources be sustained under the additional pressure? DNR Wildlife and Fisheries officials believe so, citing harvestable surpluses in both game and fish that exist in the area covered by the 1836 Treaty.

The consent decree covers harvest of white-tailed deer, black bear, elk, wild turkey, migratory birds and several species of fish.

The number of tribal members who hunt or fish is very small relative to the general population of Michigan. Most of those tribal members who desire to hunt have been doing so all along with state-issued licenses, DNR officials noted. Moreover, there are enough harvestable surpluses in our game species populations to allow for the reasonable level of additional harvest for subsistence purposes.

The same is true for ensuring the sustainability of Michigan's abundant fisheries resources.

Kelley Smith, chief of the DNR's Fisheries Division, said that, with good science and planning, the fisheries resources should not be harmed.

"For example, we know that if a lake loses more than 35% of a walleye population via harvest, that population will be less likely to be able to sustain itself," Smith said. "No lakes in the treaty area are expected to experience fishing pressure that would push the harvest of walleyes over that mark, and in fact, most lakes will remain well below it."

When utilizing efficient harvesting methods not common in sport angling, tribal members will be required to obtain permits from their tribes and report their catch. Research will be conducted by both the DNR and the tribes to ensure that harvest is not negatively affecting fish populations.

"The tribes are as concerned as the state when it comes to protecting fish stocks," Smith said.

It is important to note that gill nets, snagging, and commercial sale of fish all will be prohibited. In addition, important locations where research, egg collection and special species exist will remain protected with special regulations.

Plant materials and other natural resources will be collected and utilized by tribal members for medicinal, cultural or traditional craft use. The tribes will confer with area DNR forest management personnel to determine appropriate locations for such harvest. Harvest of standing timber will not take place.

All in all, Ekdahl believes the agreement is fair and reasonable, and that it provides long-term stability to managing Michigan's natural resources for future generations.

"The tribes had a reserved right to hunt, fish and gather, and this consent decree provides a prudent process for sharing natural resources," he said.

Extensive information about the Treaty of 1836 and the recently completed consent decree is available online at www.michigan.gov/dnr.