In the early 1960's several Native American communities began to
consider the possibility of using legal action to put forward commercial
fishing rights they believed guaranteed them by nineteenth century
treaties. Asserting these rights proved highly controversial. The court
cases begun to adjudicate the issues took many years to resolve. As
these cases slowly moved through the courts, political leaders and white
public sentiment often was strongly opposed to Native American claims.
Despite early defeats in the state courts and several
precedent setting decisions by the federal courts that suggested the
state would have difficulty winning a federal case over treaty fishing,
the state claimed sovereignty over the fishery. State officials,
including Governor William Milliken and Attorney General Frank Kelley,
stated strong opposition to Native American commercial fishing. State
employees, particularly from the Department of Natural Resources,
occasionally described Native American commercial fishers as greedy
anti-conservationists. DNR officials were particularly critical of the
tribal fishers continued use of gill nets. Local law officials and
district courts continued to enforce Michigan law. The Emmet County
prosecutor's office was particularly vigorous in seeking to prosecute
fishermen of the Bay Mills Chippewa community. Although the Emmet County
prosecutor eventually lessened his pressure, other county prosecutors
picked up where he had stopped. For at least a decade the legal
situation was, at best, confusing.
Sport fishing publications often were sharply critical of Native American treaty claims and commercial fishing activity. Outdoor Life's 1979 guide, Fishing in the Midwest,
included an article entitled "Their Taking Your Fish." The article
asserted that Indian fishers had been wrongly granted "superior rights"
by the courts. It scoffed at Native American community's self-imposed
fishing regulations as outdated and poorly or completely unenforced.
"The Indians promise self-regulation, but they practice destruction"
stated the article. Claiming that economic and ecological disaster would
flow from Indian commercial fishing and having little hope that the
Courts would reverse themselves, the article asked for support for two
pieces of pending congressional legislation. The proposed laws would
annul all Indian fishing and hunting rights and restore state regulatory
control over Native Americans acting outside of specified reservations.
Although Indian self-regulation of commercial fishing was
frequently denigrated by some whites, Indian communities did impose
their own regulations over fishing. These rules often paralleled those
established by the state with two important and controversial
distinctions. Unlike state regulations, Indian rules allowed gill nets
to be used. The Native American fishing rules also allowed fishers to
retain lake trout and other fish caught "incidentally" in gill nets,
rather than requiring them to throw the dead fish back into the water,
as did state regulation. Tribal governments, however, often had
difficulty enforcing their regulations.
At the time many tribal fishers used sixteen to twenty foot
boats powered by outboard motors. Easily towed on a trailer, these light
boats can be launched by two people across almost any beach and three
individuals can usually launch such a boat from almost anywhere the road
happens to approach the water. Even well trained tribal police found it
difficult to patrol the enormous area of open water where such boats
could be launched. Given the difficulty of enforcement it was not
surprising that some Indian fishers, like some white fishers, bent or
broke the rules. Anecdotal tales of illegal or quasi-legal Indian
fishing regularly circulated. Whether based on fact or imagination, the
stories further inflamed conditions.
Gossip, inflammatory statements by public officials, and a
sometimes very biased print media all created an escalating spiral of
increasing White protest. As anger escalated these protests sometimes
changed from speech and political advocacy to intimidation and violence.
John Alexander, a commercial fisher and an Odawa Indian, recalled that
logs or rocks frequently were used to block his access to boat ramps.
Nails were dropped to flatten the tires of his truck and trailer.
Occasionally sand was poured into the gas tank of his truck. White
boaters would sometimes attempt to swamp his fishing boat. In one
instance rifle shots were fired at him and his boat.
Two groups, the Stop Gill Netting Association (SGN) and the
Grand Traverse Area Sport Fishing Association (GTASFA) were particularly
active in protesting Native American commercial fishing activity.
Drawing members primarily from the Euro-American community living in the
northwest corner of the state's lower peninsula, both groups issued
inflammatory statements that some viewed as tinted with racism. In 1979
the Traverse City Record Eagle editorially denounced the SGN
in particular as a racist organization. Both organizations bitterly
denied these charges, arguing that their principal concern was
preserving sports fishing opportunities against the potential
devastation to the fishery that might be caused by commercial fishing.