Interesting "Treaty Rights" case in Wyoming

[Sitka_Blacktail]

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/native-american-tribe-member-killed-elk-feed-family-093110715--abc-news-topstories.html

[Taco280AI]

It's 2019, would be great if everyone was held to the same laws and regulations.

[CarbonHunter]

It would be nice but with the Trump administration siding with the tribes I don’t see any inroads being made here for equality.

[PlateauNDN]

Its 2019, it would be nice if the Govt honored its end of the agreement and the States would stay out of what doesn't involve them.

[Oh Mah]

I don't think either side really wants to be held 100% to what the treaties are. 

[CarbonHunter]

 

I don't think either side really wants to be held 100% to what the treaties are. 

 
Most of these treaties were written at a time when there were no hunting seasons and conservation was unheard of. Written by men who never intended for them to be used to give the tribes more rights than the white settlers of the area. So to say you want the government to honor the treaties might not be good for anyone.

[Humptulips]

Does Statehood abrogate the Crow Indians or any other tribes treaty rights? I would say no, however I would also argue that seasons and bag limits along with other hunting or fishing regulations do not and should not be considered an infringement upon treaty rights.
He and his fellow tribal members may still hunt off reservation. They just have to comply with hunting regulations equally applicable to all non-tribal citizens.

[idahohuntr]

Does Statehood abrogate the Crow Indians or any other tribes treaty rights? I would say no, however I would also argue that seasons and bag limits along with other hunting or fishing regulations do not and should not be considered an infringement upon treaty rights.
He and his fellow tribal members may still hunt off reservation. They just have to comply with hunting regulations equally applicable to all non-tribal citizens.

I disagree.  What is the treaty right if they are completely limited by the State's recreational harvest regulations?  This would really undermine Treaties and sovereignty - which is at least part of why the United States is supporting the Crow on this.

[Special T]

I don't think either side really wants to be held 100% to what the treaties are. 

Which is an interesting point since in many of the treaties it is illegal to sell whiskey to Indians...

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[STIKNSTRINGBOW]

Does Statehood abrogate the Crow Indians or any other tribes treaty rights? I would say no, however I would also argue that seasons and bag limits along with other hunting or fishing regulations do not and should not be considered an infringement upon treaty rights.
He and his fellow tribal members may still hunt off reservation. They just have to comply with hunting regulations equally applicable to all non-tribal citizens.

I disagree.  What is the treaty right if they are completely limited by the State's recreational harvest regulations?  This would really undermine Treaties and sovereignty - which is at least part of why the United States is supporting the Crow on this.

Because the treaties were written when natives were not even considered humans, the words "in common with the citizenry" meant the same as, not divided seperately...

[hunter399]

I have mixed feelings on treaty rights.
If some of the reservations had more conservative hunting regs than I would be all for it.on or off reservation hunt.
But with 4 deer a year 2 elk ,bears etc then being able to hunt 6-8 months out of the year .I'm not sure about being on native side with this one.

One thing I think is funny is some native are not recognized by this tribe or that tribe if they skip around to different reservations .so natives can deny some natives of rights .There not even equal with each other.

[PlateauNDN]

One thing I think is funny is some native are not recognized by this tribe or that tribe if they skip around to different reservations .so natives can deny some natives of rights .There not even equal with each other.

Says who? Tribal members can't access rights from a tribe they're not enrolled in. I can't go to the colville rez and hunt legally as I'm not colville. Nor the opposite.

You have to be a member of said tribe to get their rights. If you have enough blood to be a member of 1 tribe or another then you have to disenroll from 1 to enroll the other. Usually once you've disenrolled from a tribe you can't re-enroll.

[hunter399]

One thing I think is funny is some native are not recognized by this tribe or that tribe if they skip around to different reservations .so natives can deny some natives of rights .There not even equal with each other.

Says who? Tribal members can't access rights from a tribe they're not enrolled in. I can't go to the colville rez and hunt legally as I'm not colville. Nor the opposite.

You have to be a member of said tribe to get their rights. If you have enough blood to be a member of 1 tribe or another then you have to disenroll from 1 to enroll the other. Usually once you've disenrolled from a tribe you can't re-enroll.

Learn something new everyday .
I wouldn't sweat it I'm sure he will get out of charges and all that.I'm ok with that.

[idahohuntr]

Does Statehood abrogate the Crow Indians or any other tribes treaty rights? I would say no, however I would also argue that seasons and bag limits along with other hunting or fishing regulations do not and should not be considered an infringement upon treaty rights.
He and his fellow tribal members may still hunt off reservation. They just have to comply with hunting regulations equally applicable to all non-tribal citizens.

I disagree.  What is the treaty right if they are completely limited by the State's recreational harvest regulations?  This would really undermine Treaties and sovereignty - which is at least part of why the United States is supporting the Crow on this.

Because the treaties were written when natives were not even considered humans, the words "in common with the citizenry" meant the same as, not divided seperately...

There again - what treaty right exists if the interpretation is the tribe is limited to hunt and fish like you and me? 

[STIKNSTRINGBOW]

I disagree.  What is the treaty right if they are completely limited by the State's recreational harvest regulations?  This would really undermine Treaties and sovereignty - which is at least part of why the United States is supporting the Crow on this.

Because the treaties were written when natives were not even considered humans, the words "in common with the citizenry" meant the same as, not divided seperately...

There again - what treaty right exists if the interpretation is the tribe is limited to hunt and fish like you and me?

[/quote]
Because it is a right, not a reward.
They were non-citizens , being guaranteed the same rights as citizens, not special privileges.