Appeals Court Overturns Federal District Court Ruling on Tribal Night Hunt

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has overruled a Western (Wis.) District Court decision which prohibited night hunting by tribal members in the ceded territory of northern Wisconsin, a right denied to tribal members until this recent decision.

“This decision is a victory for Lac Courte Oreilles (LCO) and the Ojibwe tribes. But this decision signifies more than just our ability to hunt deer at night. This case is more about tribal sovereignty and the rights we never gave up, such as the right to hunt, gather and fish free from State of Wisconsin regulation whether it be during the day or at night,” said LCO Chairman Michael “Mic” Isham Jr. “Our rights are something we will never surrender. We are more than pleased with the decision of the appeals court.”

Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Indians has been at the forefront of defending the tribes’ sovereign right to hunt, fish and gather in the ceded territory of Wisconsin. In 1991, following years of litigation, a federal court in Madison affirmed these rights, yet prohibited tribal members from deer hunting at night citing safety concerns.

As a result of the 2012 Wisconsin legislative act to expand night hunting to include wolves, LCO petitioned District Court Judge Barbara Crabb to re-open the decision prohibiting nighttime deer hunting in the ceded territory by tribal members. Lac Courte Oreilles and other Ojibwe tribes provided evidence that state regulations allowed for night hunting for state citizens with minimal safety regulations, a practice, the state argued, that dated back to the 1930s.

After additional litigation, the state again cited safety as a concern for tribal night hunting despite the tribes’ argument that tribal hunters are some of the safest in the community. The Federal District Court ruled in favor of the state – a decision the tribes fought on appeal. Today’s opinion overturns the lower court’s decision and directs the District Court to issue an order consistent with the Appellate Court’s ruling.