Post by: sagerat on November 02, 2018, 10:13:39 AM
Post by: PlateauNDN on November 02, 2018, 06:40:50 PM
Post by: bobcat on November 02, 2018, 07:04:58 PM
Post by: Tbar on November 02, 2018, 07:36:26 PM
Awesome! I thought for sure they would drop the charges, and the Bighorn Mountains would become the Crow Tribe's new hunting grounds. Until they wiped out all the elk, like they have on their reservation.Man you have no clue of the history in this case(s). The state has never dropped the charges against him or his dad.
Post by: Tbar on November 02, 2018, 07:37:12 PM
This case will get interesting.:yeah:
Post by: PlateauNDN on November 02, 2018, 07:48:23 PM
Post by: ASHQUACK on November 02, 2018, 07:50:19 PM
Post by: Tbar on November 02, 2018, 07:52:13 PM
Amazing the difference between the 9th circus and the 10th.And the solicitors opinion is not valid?
Post by: bobcat on November 02, 2018, 08:17:07 PM
Awesome! I thought for sure they would drop the charges, and the Bighorn Mountains would become the Crow Tribe's new hunting grounds. Until they wiped out all the elk, like they have on their reservation.Man you have no clue of the history in this case(s). The state has never dropped the charges against him or his dad.
I wasn't talking about the state dropping the charges. I meant when they went to court that the charges would be dropped, or he would be found not guilty, however you want to say it. They've never been allowed to hunt in the Bighorn National Forest so why that one guy thought it was okay I have no idea.
Post by: Tbar on November 02, 2018, 08:36:53 PM
Was it one guy? Is there a long standing list of charges? You sure about never?Awesome! I thought for sure they would drop the charges, and the Bighorn Mountains would become the Crow Tribe's new hunting grounds. Until they wiped out all the elk, like they have on their reservation.Man you have no clue of the history in this case(s). The state has never dropped the charges against him or his dad.
I wasn't talking about the state dropping the charges. I meant when they went to court that the charges would be dropped, or he would be found not guilty, however you want to say it. They've never been allowed to hunt in the Bighorn National Forest so why that one guy thought it was okay I have no idea.
Post by: PlateauNDN on November 02, 2018, 08:40:08 PM
So someone believes they've never hunted the bighorn mts? Is that fact or just an assumption?
I suppose some would say my Tribe has no rights to treaty hunt as far as the plains to?
I'm no hw expert on indian treaty issues so I'll leave that alone.
Like I said, it's going to get interesting.
Post by: idahohuntr on November 02, 2018, 08:59:12 PM
Trumps solicitors have provided the court with the position of the United States...which is in full support of Herrera.
Post by: PlateauNDN on November 02, 2018, 09:06:07 PM
This will mark 2 treaty related cases in a month for SCOTUS.
Post by: huntnphool on November 02, 2018, 09:33:03 PM
The crow have no elk on their rez? Really, because the pics I see coming from there say other wise. But then again, as it pertains to hw experts of Indian country i dont know what I'm talking about.
I have a lease down there, have driven through about every year for years and never seen so much as a doe on the actual Rez.....just sayin. ;)
Post by: PlateauNDN on November 02, 2018, 09:35:44 PM
The crow have no elk on their rez? Really, because the pics I see coming from there say other wise. But then again, as it pertains to hw experts of Indian country i dont know what I'm talking about.
I have a lease down there, have driven through about every year for years and never seen so much as a doe on the actual Rez.....just sayin. ;)
I've never seen a cougar in the thousands of miles I've put on in the forests of wa. So does that mean they're not there.
Post by: pianoman9701 on November 03, 2018, 06:56:35 AM
Post by: Jpmiller on November 03, 2018, 07:15:39 AM
The crow have no elk on their rez? Really, because the pics I see coming from there say other wise. But then again, as it pertains to hw experts of Indian country i dont know what I'm talking about.
I have a lease down there, have driven through about every year for years and never seen so much as a doe on the actual Rez.....just sayin. ;)
I've never seen a cougar in the thousands of miles I've put on in the forests of wa. So does that mean they're not there.
All I see in the deer and elk threads is guys who saw 9 cats and no other game and you've never seen one?!?! Must be seeing too many deer and elk then lol
Post by: sagerat on November 03, 2018, 07:30:03 AM
WY certainly follows its own path, as with going up against the USFWS with regard to the wolves. I have little doubt this will eventually be overturned by the SCOTUS.
I’m glad somebody has the balls to do it. I don’t know why you tribal boys are getting so worked up, pretty sure you’re safe here.
Post by: pianoman9701 on November 03, 2018, 08:40:27 AM
Post by: sagerat on November 03, 2018, 08:43:16 AM
I'm not a "tribal boy" (not really a very respectful term for your fellow hunters), but I understand the law surrounding treaties and they're protected by congressional approval and the signature of the President until they're overturned.
Sorry, wasn’t referring to you. Why is that disrespectful? What term should I use since you’re the expert?
Post by: pianoman9701 on November 03, 2018, 08:50:23 AM
Post by: Igor on November 03, 2018, 09:06:59 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on November 03, 2018, 09:22:32 AM
Post by: Igor on November 03, 2018, 09:26:16 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on November 03, 2018, 09:40:40 AM
So. native tribes do not fall within the jurisdiction of the states?I believe not while on their reservations. They fall under tribal law. And hunting and fishing rights often include area off the reservations.
Post by: Igor on November 03, 2018, 09:52:06 AM
And hunting and fishing rights often include area off the reservations.So. native tribes do not fall within the jurisdiction of the states?I believe not while on their reservations. They fall under tribal law. . And hunting and fishing rights often include area off the reservations..
That is the part that has always puzzled me (maybe I'm just not real bright). Why is there not "equal protection" for all persons under those particular circumstances? Are they under state jurisdiction, or not, when off their reservation?
Post by: pianoman9701 on November 03, 2018, 09:59:03 AM
And hunting and fishing rights often include area off the reservations.So. native tribes do not fall within the jurisdiction of the states?I believe not while on their reservations. They fall under tribal law. . And hunting and fishing rights often include area off the reservations..
That is the part that has always puzzled me (maybe I'm just not real bright). Why is there not "equal protection" for all persons under those particular circumstances? Are they under state jurisdiction, or not, when off their reservation?
Because those conditions were part of a treaty passed by the US Congress. It's the law. Not every treaty is the same. Some apply only to rights on lands within reservations. Some include rights off the reservation. I believe the ceded lands of the Yakima are an example. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.
Post by: Timberstalker on November 03, 2018, 10:14:35 AM
The crow have no elk on their rez? Really, because the pics I see coming from there say other wise. But then again, as it pertains to hw experts of Indian country i dont know what I'm talking about.
I have a lease down there, have driven through about every year for years and never seen so much as a doe on the actual Rez.....just sayin. ;)
I've never seen a cougar in the thousands of miles I've put on in the forests of wa. So does that mean they're not there.
Some people have a knack for cougars, some don’t.
Post by: Igor on November 03, 2018, 10:15:58 AM
And hunting and fishing rights often include area off the reservations.So. native tribes do not fall within the jurisdiction of the states?I believe not while on their reservations. They fall under tribal law. . And hunting and fishing rights often include area off the reservations..
That is the part that has always puzzled me (maybe I'm just not real bright). Why is there not "equal protection" for all persons under those particular circumstances? Are they under state jurisdiction, or not, when off their reservation?
Because those conditions were part of a treaty passed by the US Congress. It's the law. Not every treaty is the same. Some apply only to rights on lands within reservations. Some include rights off the reservation. I believe the ceded lands of the Yakima are an example. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.
It's the law.
Stupid me.............I always thought the United States Constitution (including the 14th Amendment) was the law. I guess when you are a politician you can cherry-pick which parts of the law you want to abide by and which parts you don't.
Post by: pianoman9701 on November 03, 2018, 10:22:09 AM
Post by: Igor on November 03, 2018, 10:35:01 AM
The power of the Legislature to pass treaties is part of the Constitution in Article I. Again, I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the rights afforded Natives through these treaties. Just that the people we elected to Congress passed them. Congress can also nullify them. Get on the phone!
It's not the individual rights which are afforded that I have a particular beef with, it's the fact that my little non-legal brain has never been able to grasp the idea that our Constitution applies to everyone, except when it doesn't. To me "equal protection under the law" means just that.........equal. I know I'm spinning my wheels on this one, however that doesn't keep me from wondering.........
Post by: PlateauNDN on November 03, 2018, 10:35:48 AM
Nope, not much of a cougar hunter, haven't tried hunting them though as I was just saying I dont see them. As I recall in some recent threads many on here have not seen them either and I recall a member saying in decades of hunting they finally saw 1 and killed it so it seems I'm not the only 1.
Post by: PlateauNDN on November 03, 2018, 10:44:10 AM
To give an example, this would be like living in ellensburg and Seattle coming to your home and telling you they want your money to pay for utilities and other city services.
Post by: Bigshooter on November 03, 2018, 11:00:15 AM
Awesome! I thought for sure they would drop the charges, and the Bighorn Mountains would become the Crow Tribe's new hunting grounds. Until they wiped out all the elk, like they have on their reservation.
:yeah:
Very good news for hunters.
Post by: Igor on November 03, 2018, 11:52:31 AM
When exercising our treaty rights we do not fall under state jurisdiction. When I'm hunting, fishing and gathering outside the Reservation I still fall under tribal laws because I'm exercising my rights, thus the state has no jurisdiction. Our treaties were negotiated with the federal govt not states and maybe you should read article 6 of the Constitution since it comes before 14.
Nope, not much of a cougar hunter, haven't tried hunting them though as I was just saying I dont see them. As I recall in some recent threads many on here have not seen them either and I recall a member saying in decades of hunting they finally saw 1 and killed it so it seems I'm not the only 1.
Our treaties were negotiated with the federal govt not states and maybe you should read article 6 of the Constitution since it comes before 14.
Yep, I'm aware of Article 6 of the Constitution, but thanks for pointing it out to me. I was not aware that things worked chronologically within the Constitution, but then I don't claim to be a scholar nor an expert in Constitutional law. I'm just an average type of guy, trying to figure out how this preferential thing works.
Post by: PlateauNDN on November 03, 2018, 12:29:41 PM
Though some tribes had begun to be recognized as citizens of the US it wasnt until the 1920's that collectively all tribes were extended citizenship officially.
What you call preferential treatment was in reality segregation back then. They wanted what we had and they wanted to segregate us from the citizens of the US.
Post by: Igor on November 03, 2018, 12:48:58 PM
The mentality of the feds at the time of the treaties and for some even til today is that we are/were not citizens. Throughout the Constitution theres references that we are to be treated as sovereign/foreign nations.
Though some tribes had begun to be recognized as citizens of the US it wasnt until the 1920's that collectively all tribes were extended citizenship officially.
What you call preferential treatment was in reality segregation back then. They wanted what we had and they wanted to segregate us from the citizens of the US.
Preferential treatment is preferential treatment, whether it is viewed as either good or bad. It's not what I "call" it......it is what it is. It has always been a curiosity to me that people in this country are afforded "rights" simply by accident of birth. Our country was founded on the concept of equality, yet there are still so many people here who want to be more equal than their brethren......it's their "right".......and they will argue to the death to maintain those "rights".
Post by: PlateauNDN on November 03, 2018, 01:30:23 PM
I will fight and defend treaty rights just as I'm sure your fight for the 2md amendment. Is that any different?
Would you give the 2A up or the 1A?
Post by: sagerat on November 03, 2018, 01:34:51 PM
Yes, a country that was founded by the genocide of my people and others that were already here.
I will fight and defend treaty rights just as I'm sure your fight for the 2md amendment. Is that any different?
Would you give the 2A up or the 1A?
The 2nd Amendment covers everybody not just a select few.
Post by: PlateauNDN on November 03, 2018, 01:45:25 PM
Post by: Igor on November 03, 2018, 02:06:10 PM
Yes, a country that was founded by the genocide of my people and others that were already here.
I will fight and defend treaty rights just as I'm sure your fight for the 2md amendment. Is that any different?
Would you give the 2A up or the 1A?
Yes, there is a huge difference, as I'm certain you are well aware. Those rights are not a privilege of birth.
As far as defending your "treaty rights", have at it. You obviously feel you are entitled by accident of birth. I have no interest in this subject other than a mild curiosity, and no intention of getting into a pi$$ing contest. Thanks for your input to my questions.
Post by: Kazekurt on November 03, 2018, 03:41:22 PM
Post by: PlateauNDN on November 03, 2018, 05:20:53 PM
Kazekurt, that may be the attitude of them, but it does not represent all of our views.
Post by: Kazekurt on November 03, 2018, 06:45:09 PM
Post by: PlateauNDN on November 03, 2018, 06:59:26 PM
It's a conversation best given in-person.
Post by: Kazekurt on November 03, 2018, 07:19:01 PM
The challenge right now is trying to explain and via posts the intricacies of Tribes, the culture, the lifestyle and the meaning. I could give it a try but then I'd be writing a very lengthy short book and spending probably hours typing it.
It's a conversation best given in-person.
I here ya. Some issues are too complex to discuss in writing. Good luck on your hunts! I'm sure we have far more in common than we have different. I just want to see hunting be sustainable and I see some things that really worry me. Between poor game management, poaching, fractures in the hunting community, loss of hunt able ground, rising hunting costs, and attacks on gun ownership; I fear we may be slowly dying.
Post by: KFhunter on February 16, 2019, 11:19:11 AM
Herrera v. Wyoming: Inside the Elk Hunting Case Before the Supreme Court
Quote
On Jan. 8, a game warden for the Crow Tribe of southeastern Montana went before the United States Supreme Court. Clayvin Herrera was convicted by the State of Wyoming of killing a bull elk out of season, without a license in January 2014. Two of his companions, who also shot bulls after following the herd off the Crow Reservation across the state line into the Bighorn National Forest, both pleaded guilty to the same poaching charges and paid fines. Herrera however, has argued all the way to the highest court in the land that the 1868 Second Treaty of Fort Laramie guarantees his tribal “right to hunt on the unoccupied lands of the United States so long as game may be found thereon.”
more at the link
This could have huge implications at first glance but I haven't finished reading it or researching it yet.
Post by: KFhunter on February 16, 2019, 11:34:40 AM
Post by: Odell on February 16, 2019, 11:39:56 AM
That has not been the experience in WA. I believe there was a new sheep hunt this year in WA with no communication with WDFW and the quote was "why should we have to?"
Post by: Odell on February 16, 2019, 11:43:52 AM
“That was a time when the tribe was in recession bad. And they cut our hours. They cut our pay,” Herrera testified on the witness stand. “I was cut down to like 32 hours a week. They cut me down to like $10 an hour. And growing kids, they eat more than me now, but the plan was to get an elk to eat it. Live off it.”
Which is why they found a fourth bull there left untouched? SMH.
Post by: KFhunter on February 16, 2019, 11:50:10 AM
Herrera insists that he did not mean to cross into Wyoming that day five years ago, but still it was his right to do so. Above all, he says, he was just trying to provide meat for his three daughters.
“That was a time when the tribe was in recession bad. And they cut our hours. They cut our pay,” Herrera testified on the witness stand. “I was cut down to like 32 hours a week. They cut me down to like $10 an hour. And growing kids, they eat more than me now, but the plan was to get an elk to eat it. Live off it.”
Which is why they found a fourth bull there left untouched? SMH.
and backstraps and a head removed but nothing else on another bull
Post by: Tbar on February 16, 2019, 12:05:33 PM
Post by: KFhunter on February 16, 2019, 12:06:45 PM
https://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,232948.msg3107655.html#msg3107655
:tup: thanks, I'll merge the two