Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on January 08, 2019, 10:28:43 PM
Post by: Taco280AI on January 09, 2019, 06:29:28 AM
Post by: CarbonHunter on January 09, 2019, 06:40:20 AM
Post by: PlateauNDN on January 09, 2019, 07:31:16 AM
Post by: Oh Mah on January 09, 2019, 08:13:55 AM
Post by: CarbonHunter on January 15, 2019, 07:28:10 AM
I don't think either side really wants to be held 100% to what the treaties are. :twocents::yeah:
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.
Post by: Humptulips on January 15, 2019, 08:27:57 AM
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.
Post by: idahohuntr on January 15, 2019, 08:56:06 AM
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.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.
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.
Post by: Special T on January 15, 2019, 08:58:19 AM
I don't think either side really wants to be held 100% to what the treaties are. :twocents: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
Post by: STIKNSTRINGBOW on January 15, 2019, 09:13:48 AM
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...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.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.
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.
Post by: hunter399 on January 15, 2019, 09:14:59 AM
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.
Post by: PlateauNDN on January 15, 2019, 09:33:23 AM
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.
Post by: hunter399 on January 15, 2019, 09:43:31 AM
Learn something new everyday . :tup:
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.
I wouldn't sweat it I'm sure he will get out of charges and all that.I'm ok with that. :hello:
Post by: idahohuntr on January 15, 2019, 10:23:08 AM
There again - what treaty right exists if the interpretation is the tribe is limited to hunt and fish like you and me?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...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.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.
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.
Post by: STIKNSTRINGBOW on January 15, 2019, 11:05:04 AM
Quote
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...
Quote
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.
Post by: idahohuntr on January 15, 2019, 11:31:02 AM
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...
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.
[/quote]
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.
[/quote]
That is not at all correct. Many Tribes ceded millions of acres of land to the United States in exchange for the reservation of hunting, fishing and other rights. Treaty Rights were not a grant of rights from the US - they were a reservation of rights always held by Tribes, so its nonsensical that one could interpret the Treaty the way you are.
Post by: idaho guy on January 15, 2019, 11:36:40 AM
Post by: Oh Mah on January 15, 2019, 12:56:18 PM
There again - what treaty right exists if the interpretation is the tribe is limited to hunt and fish like you and me?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...
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.
[/quote]
Because it is a right, not a reward.
They were non-citizens , being guaranteed the same rights as citizens, not special privileges.
[/quote]
That is not at all correct. Many Tribes ceded millions of acres of land to the United States in exchange for the reservation of hunting, fishing and other rights. Treaty Rights were not a grant of rights from the US - they were a reservation of rights always held by Tribes, so its nonsensical that one could interpret the Treaty the way you are.
[/quote]If you really believe this then you must not be one of the people that think white man came to America and stole their land,By your statement we traded for their treaty rights and special privileges.Now can we put that issue to sleep or is there a debate on that still, well just because?
Post by: idahohuntr on January 15, 2019, 01:24:07 PM
They can hunt the Montana side of the bighorns ,which is on the reservation, clear into I think jan or feb on winter range. Not a big deal to see 50 bulls herded up on winter range at that time of year.Anyways it is on reservation land and I totally agree with them doing whatever the tribe thinks is right. Wyoming is another ball game and that I think it is a pretty tough draw area for elk. How can Wyoming manage that for a quality limited hunt and allow the crow to hunt that almost year around? I agree with the different tribes having some hunting rights etc but you have to draw the line somewhere especially when it comes to game management.Simple - Wyoming does not have jurisdiction over a sovereign that has a treaty entered into by the United States.
Closer to home - we have Treaty Tribes that hunt all kinds of special draw/quality elk units in Idaho, Washington, Oregon etc. and the states have no jurisdiction over them (when they hunt, how many bulls they kill etc.).
Post by: baker5150 on January 15, 2019, 01:40:40 PM
They can hunt the Montana side of the bighorns ,which is on the reservation, clear into I think jan or feb on winter range. Not a big deal to see 50 bulls herded up on winter range at that time of year.Anyways it is on reservation land and I totally agree with them doing whatever the tribe thinks is right. Wyoming is another ball game and that I think it is a pretty tough draw area for elk. How can Wyoming manage that for a quality limited hunt and allow the crow to hunt that almost year around? I agree with the different tribes having some hunting rights etc but you have to draw the line somewhere especially when it comes to game management.Simple - Wyoming does not have jurisdiction over a sovereign that has a treaty entered into by the United States.
Closer to home - we have Treaty Tribes that hunt all kinds of special draw/quality elk units in Idaho, Washington, Oregon etc. and the states have no jurisdiction over them (when they hunt, how many bulls they kill etc.).
This is what interests me in this case. If this is so simple, then why did the Tenth circuit court have a differing opinion.
This is the previous opinion
The Court "conceded that where there are rights created by Congress, during the existence of a Territory, which are of such a nature as to imply their perpetuity, and the consequent purpose of Congress to continue them in the State, after its admission, such continuation will, as a matter of construction, be upheld, although the enabling act does not expressly so direct." Id. at 515, 16 S. Ct. at 1080. However, " [h]ere the nature of the right created gives rise to no such implication of continuance, since, by its terms, it shows that the burden imposed on the Territory was essentially perishable and intended to be of limited duration."3 Id. Therefore, the treaty "does not give [the Tribe] the right to exercise this privilege within the limits of [Wyoming] in violation of its laws." Id. at 504, 16 S. Ct. at 1076.
Post by: idahohuntr on January 15, 2019, 02:16:02 PM
Assuming the SCOTUS does not take up that bigger issue (treaties of limited duration), it will likely address two key arguments made by Wyoming - both of which are presented to explain why the Treaty is not in effect in Wyoming:
1. Creation of statehood terminated the treaty
2. The bighorn national forest is not unoccupied lands and therefore the Crow have no right to hunt there, per terms of the treaty
I think Wyoming will lose on both points. If they prevail on one, it will be the unoccupied lands argument - but I don't see much chance on that one either.
If Wyoming prevails on either of these 2 points, Herrera loses, and it would seem likely to have monumental effects to treaties/treaty rights across the US, but especially the Pacific Northwest.
Post by: baker5150 on January 15, 2019, 02:36:09 PM
The 10th Circuit relied on lower court case law from a century ago - and its not clear whether SCOTUS will clarify that issue, but in short that older case law did imply Treaties were of limited duration as States were added to the Union. Rulings in other circuits and even the SCOTUS in more recent times have not concurred with that limited duration finding.
Assuming the SCOTUS does not take up that bigger issue (treaties of limited duration), it will likely address two key arguments made by Wyoming - both of which are presented to explain why the Treaty is not in effect in Wyoming:
1. Creation of statehood terminated the treaty
2. The bighorn national forest is not unoccupied lands and therefore the Crow have no right to hunt there, per terms of the treaty
I think Wyoming will lose on both points. If they prevail on one, it will be the unoccupied lands argument - but I don't see much chance on that one either.
If Wyoming prevails on either of these 2 points, Herrera loses, and it would seem likely to have monumental effects to treaties/treaty rights across the US, but especially the Pacific Northwest.
They relied Mostly on the treaty itself, they even note it.
To determine the nature of the reserved right, the Court examined the literary and historical context of the treaty and Article 4. Initially, the Court concluded that unoccupied lands "were only such lands of that character embraced within what the treaty denominates as hunting districts" and not all the lands ceded by the Indians which were owned by the United States and not yet settled. Id. at 508, 16 S. Ct. at 1077-78.
After careful historical analysis, the Court concluded that the hunting right reserved by the treaty "clearly contemplated the disappearance of the conditions therein specified" and was of a "temporary and precarious nature."
affirmation of the appeals case mentioned
We AFFIRM the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the State and dismissal of the Tribe's UIA claim. Unlike the district court's apologetic interpretation of and reluctant reliance upon Ward v. Race Horse, we view Race Horse as compelling, well-reasoned, and persuasive.6 Also, contrary to the Tribe's views, there is nothing to indicate that Race Horse has been "overruled, repudiated or disclaimed;" Race Horse is alive and well.
Race Horse conclusively established that "the right to hunt on all unoccupied lands of the United States so long as game may be found thereon, ..." reserved a temporary right which was repealed with Wyoming's admission into the Union. 163 U.S. at 504, 16 S. Ct. at 1076. In addition, although the Treaty with the Crows, 1868, reserved a right to hunt on "unoccupied lands;" the lands of the Big Horn National Forest have been "occupied" since the creation of the national forest in 1887. Therefore, we hold that the Tribe and its members are subject to the game laws of Wyoming.
Post by: idahohuntr on January 15, 2019, 02:55:33 PM
My reading is they relied primarily on Ward v Race Horse to support their flawed interpretation/application of the law to Tribal Treaties.The 10th Circuit relied on lower court case law from a century ago - and its not clear whether SCOTUS will clarify that issue, but in short that older case law did imply Treaties were of limited duration as States were added to the Union. Rulings in other circuits and even the SCOTUS in more recent times have not concurred with that limited duration finding.
Assuming the SCOTUS does not take up that bigger issue (treaties of limited duration), it will likely address two key arguments made by Wyoming - both of which are presented to explain why the Treaty is not in effect in Wyoming:
1. Creation of statehood terminated the treaty
2. The bighorn national forest is not unoccupied lands and therefore the Crow have no right to hunt there, per terms of the treaty
I think Wyoming will lose on both points. If they prevail on one, it will be the unoccupied lands argument - but I don't see much chance on that one either.
If Wyoming prevails on either of these 2 points, Herrera loses, and it would seem likely to have monumental effects to treaties/treaty rights across the US, but especially the Pacific Northwest.
They relied Mostly on the treaty itself, they even note it.
To determine the nature of the reserved right, the Court examined the literary and historical context of the treaty and Article 4. Initially, the Court concluded that unoccupied lands "were only such lands of that character embraced within what the treaty denominates as hunting districts" and not all the lands ceded by the Indians which were owned by the United States and not yet settled. Id. at 508, 16 S. Ct. at 1077-78.
After careful historical analysis, the Court concluded that the hunting right reserved by the treaty "clearly contemplated the disappearance of the conditions therein specified" and was of a "temporary and precarious nature."
affirmation of the appeals case mentioned
We AFFIRM the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the State and dismissal of the Tribe's UIA claim. Unlike the district court's apologetic interpretation of and reluctant reliance upon Ward v. Race Horse, we view Race Horse as compelling, well-reasoned, and persuasive.6 Also, contrary to the Tribe's views, there is nothing to indicate that Race Horse has been "overruled, repudiated or disclaimed;" Race Horse is alive and well.
Race Horse conclusively established that "the right to hunt on all unoccupied lands of the United States so long as game may be found thereon, ..." reserved a temporary right which was repealed with Wyoming's admission into the Union. 163 U.S. at 504, 16 S. Ct. at 1076. In addition, although the Treaty with the Crows, 1868, reserved a right to hunt on "unoccupied lands;" the lands of the Big Horn National Forest have been "occupied" since the creation of the national forest in 1887. Therefore, we hold that the Tribe and its members are subject to the game laws of Wyoming.
The Supreme Court seems to have a knack for providing very limited scope rulings based on technicalities...short of that - I see no way Wyoming prevails.
Post by: baker5150 on January 15, 2019, 03:31:01 PM
My reading is they relied primarily on Ward v Race Horse to support their flawed interpretation/application of the law to Tribal Treaties.The 10th Circuit relied on lower court case law from a century ago - and its not clear whether SCOTUS will clarify that issue, but in short that older case law did imply Treaties were of limited duration as States were added to the Union. Rulings in other circuits and even the SCOTUS in more recent times have not concurred with that limited duration finding.
Assuming the SCOTUS does not take up that bigger issue (treaties of limited duration), it will likely address two key arguments made by Wyoming - both of which are presented to explain why the Treaty is not in effect in Wyoming:
1. Creation of statehood terminated the treaty
2. The bighorn national forest is not unoccupied lands and therefore the Crow have no right to hunt there, per terms of the treaty
I think Wyoming will lose on both points. If they prevail on one, it will be the unoccupied lands argument - but I don't see much chance on that one either.
If Wyoming prevails on either of these 2 points, Herrera loses, and it would seem likely to have monumental effects to treaties/treaty rights across the US, but especially the Pacific Northwest.
They relied Mostly on the treaty itself, they even note it.
To determine the nature of the reserved right, the Court examined the literary and historical context of the treaty and Article 4. Initially, the Court concluded that unoccupied lands "were only such lands of that character embraced within what the treaty denominates as hunting districts" and not all the lands ceded by the Indians which were owned by the United States and not yet settled. Id. at 508, 16 S. Ct. at 1077-78.
After careful historical analysis, the Court concluded that the hunting right reserved by the treaty "clearly contemplated the disappearance of the conditions therein specified" and was of a "temporary and precarious nature."
affirmation of the appeals case mentioned
We AFFIRM the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the State and dismissal of the Tribe's UIA claim. Unlike the district court's apologetic interpretation of and reluctant reliance upon Ward v. Race Horse, we view Race Horse as compelling, well-reasoned, and persuasive.6 Also, contrary to the Tribe's views, there is nothing to indicate that Race Horse has been "overruled, repudiated or disclaimed;" Race Horse is alive and well.
Race Horse conclusively established that "the right to hunt on all unoccupied lands of the United States so long as game may be found thereon, ..." reserved a temporary right which was repealed with Wyoming's admission into the Union. 163 U.S. at 504, 16 S. Ct. at 1076. In addition, although the Treaty with the Crows, 1868, reserved a right to hunt on "unoccupied lands;" the lands of the Big Horn National Forest have been "occupied" since the creation of the national forest in 1887. Therefore, we hold that the Tribe and its members are subject to the game laws of Wyoming.
The Supreme Court seems to have a knack for providing very limited scope rulings based on technicalities...short of that - I see no way Wyoming prevails.
Of course, in this case the defendant uses Ward vs Racehorse for their bases of appeal.
Post by: Ace on January 15, 2019, 04:45:55 PM
Post by: Tbar on January 15, 2019, 05:36:13 PM
The defendant?My reading is they relied primarily on Ward v Race Horse to support their flawed interpretation/application of the law to Tribal Treaties.The 10th Circuit relied on lower court case law from a century ago - and its not clear whether SCOTUS will clarify that issue, but in short that older case law did imply Treaties were of limited duration as States were added to the Union. Rulings in other circuits and even the SCOTUS in more recent times have not concurred with that limited duration finding.
Assuming the SCOTUS does not take up that bigger issue (treaties of limited duration), it will likely address two key arguments made by Wyoming - both of which are presented to explain why the Treaty is not in effect in Wyoming:
1. Creation of statehood terminated the treaty
2. The bighorn national forest is not unoccupied lands and therefore the Crow have no right to hunt there, per terms of the treaty
I think Wyoming will lose on both points. If they prevail on one, it will be the unoccupied lands argument - but I don't see much chance on that one either.
If Wyoming prevails on either of these 2 points, Herrera loses, and it would seem likely to have monumental effects to treaties/treaty rights across the US, but especially the Pacific Northwest.
They relied Mostly on the treaty itself, they even note it.
To determine the nature of the reserved right, the Court examined the literary and historical context of the treaty and Article 4. Initially, the Court concluded that unoccupied lands "were only such lands of that character embraced within what the treaty denominates as hunting districts" and not all the lands ceded by the Indians which were owned by the United States and not yet settled. Id. at 508, 16 S. Ct. at 1077-78.
After careful historical analysis, the Court concluded that the hunting right reserved by the treaty "clearly contemplated the disappearance of the conditions therein specified" and was of a "temporary and precarious nature."
affirmation of the appeals case mentioned
We AFFIRM the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the State and dismissal of the Tribe's UIA claim. Unlike the district court's apologetic interpretation of and reluctant reliance upon Ward v. Race Horse, we view Race Horse as compelling, well-reasoned, and persuasive.6 Also, contrary to the Tribe's views, there is nothing to indicate that Race Horse has been "overruled, repudiated or disclaimed;" Race Horse is alive and well.
Race Horse conclusively established that "the right to hunt on all unoccupied lands of the United States so long as game may be found thereon, ..." reserved a temporary right which was repealed with Wyoming's admission into the Union. 163 U.S. at 504, 16 S. Ct. at 1076. In addition, although the Treaty with the Crows, 1868, reserved a right to hunt on "unoccupied lands;" the lands of the Big Horn National Forest have been "occupied" since the creation of the national forest in 1887. Therefore, we hold that the Tribe and its members are subject to the game laws of Wyoming.
The Supreme Court seems to have a knack for providing very limited scope rulings based on technicalities...short of that - I see no way Wyoming prevails.
Of course, in this case the defendant uses Ward vs Racehorse for their bases of appeal.
Post by: CarbonHunter on January 15, 2019, 06:02:03 PM
Post by: idaho guy on January 15, 2019, 06:06:09 PM
They can hunt the Montana side of the bighorns ,which is on the reservation, clear into I think jan or feb on winter range. Not a big deal to see 50 bulls herded up on winter range at that time of year.Anyways it is on reservation land and I totally agree with them doing whatever the tribe thinks is right. Wyoming is another ball game and that I think it is a pretty tough draw area for elk. How can Wyoming manage that for a quality limited hunt and allow the crow to hunt that almost year around? I agree with the different tribes having some hunting rights etc but you have to draw the line somewhere especially when it comes to game management.Simple - Wyoming does not have jurisdiction over a sovereign that has a treaty entered into by the United States.
Closer to home - we have Treaty Tribes that hunt all kinds of special draw/quality elk units in Idaho, Washington, Oregon etc. and the states have no jurisdiction over them (when they hunt, how many bulls they kill etc.).
I know that occurs in Idaho and Washington that is my point. Exactly how well do you think that's working with unlimited tribal hunts in so called controlled hunt areas in Idaho and Washington? At some point we have to have common sense. We cant go back and hunt like we did 200 years ago and at a minimum their should be cooperation between tribes and other wildlife managers to achieve the same goals for the animals . I think you are usually supporting science based wildlife management and seem to believe in the biologist. How does that work allowing unchecked hunting by certain groups? I SUPPORT tribal hunting rights but we have to use common sense applying 200 year old treaty rights to todays world game management.
Post by: Ace on January 15, 2019, 06:13:25 PM
Post by: Humptulips on January 15, 2019, 06:17:44 PM
There again - what treaty right exists if the interpretation is the tribe is limited to hunt and fish like you and me?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...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.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.
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.
That is the treaty right. To be treated equally. Consider the time when the treaties were written. Natives were not treated equally and the guarantee they could hunt off reservation like anyone else meant something. Seasons and bag limits came later. That was an unthought-of concept at the time when the treaties were signed.
Post by: PlateauNDN on January 15, 2019, 06:49:29 PM
Post by: bobcat on January 15, 2019, 06:52:10 PM
They can hunt the Montana side of the bighorns ,which is on the reservation, clear into I think jan or feb on winter range. Not a big deal to see 50 bulls herded up on winter range at that time of year.Anyways it is on reservation land and I totally agree with them doing whatever the tribe thinks is right. Wyoming is another ball game and that I think it is a pretty tough draw area for elk. How can Wyoming manage that for a quality limited hunt and allow the crow to hunt that almost year around? I agree with the different tribes having some hunting rights etc but you have to draw the line somewhere especially when it comes to game management.Simple - Wyoming does not have jurisdiction over a sovereign that has a treaty entered into by the United States.
Closer to home - we have Treaty Tribes that hunt all kinds of special draw/quality elk units in Idaho, Washington, Oregon etc. and the states have no jurisdiction over them (when they hunt, how many bulls they kill etc.).
I know that occurs in Idaho and Washington that is my point. Exactly how well do you think that's working with unlimited tribal hunts in so called controlled hunt areas in Idaho and Washington? At some point we have to have common sense. We cant go back and hunt like we did 200 years ago and at a minimum their should be cooperation between tribes and other wildlife managers to achieve the same goals for the animals . I think you are usually supporting science based wildlife management and seem to believe in the biologist. How does that work allowing unchecked hunting by certain groups? I SUPPORT tribal hunting rights but we have to use common sense applying 200 year old treaty rights to todays world game management.
Good post. I agree 100%.
Post by: bobcat on January 15, 2019, 06:52:56 PM
There again - what treaty right exists if the interpretation is the tribe is limited to hunt and fish like you and me?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...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.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.
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.
That is the treaty right. To be treated equally. Consider the time when the treaties were written. Natives were not treated equally and the guarantee they could hunt off reservation like anyone else meant something. Seasons and bag limits came later. That was an unthought-of concept at the time when the treaties were signed.
Another very good post. :tup:
Post by: Ace on January 15, 2019, 07:20:18 PM
Post by: baker5150 on January 15, 2019, 07:27:58 PM
The defendant?My reading is they relied primarily on Ward v Race Horse to support their flawed interpretation/application of the law to Tribal Treaties.The 10th Circuit relied on lower court case law from a century ago - and its not clear whether SCOTUS will clarify that issue, but in short that older case law did imply Treaties were of limited duration as States were added to the Union. Rulings in other circuits and even the SCOTUS in more recent times have not concurred with that limited duration finding.
Assuming the SCOTUS does not take up that bigger issue (treaties of limited duration), it will likely address two key arguments made by Wyoming - both of which are presented to explain why the Treaty is not in effect in Wyoming:
1. Creation of statehood terminated the treaty
2. The bighorn national forest is not unoccupied lands and therefore the Crow have no right to hunt there, per terms of the treaty
I think Wyoming will lose on both points. If they prevail on one, it will be the unoccupied lands argument - but I don't see much chance on that one either.
If Wyoming prevails on either of these 2 points, Herrera loses, and it would seem likely to have monumental effects to treaties/treaty rights across the US, but especially the Pacific Northwest.
They relied Mostly on the treaty itself, they even note it.
To determine the nature of the reserved right, the Court examined the literary and historical context of the treaty and Article 4. Initially, the Court concluded that unoccupied lands "were only such lands of that character embraced within what the treaty denominates as hunting districts" and not all the lands ceded by the Indians which were owned by the United States and not yet settled. Id. at 508, 16 S. Ct. at 1077-78.
After careful historical analysis, the Court concluded that the hunting right reserved by the treaty "clearly contemplated the disappearance of the conditions therein specified" and was of a "temporary and precarious nature."
affirmation of the appeals case mentioned
We AFFIRM the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the State and dismissal of the Tribe's UIA claim. Unlike the district court's apologetic interpretation of and reluctant reliance upon Ward v. Race Horse, we view Race Horse as compelling, well-reasoned, and persuasive.6 Also, contrary to the Tribe's views, there is nothing to indicate that Race Horse has been "overruled, repudiated or disclaimed;" Race Horse is alive and well.
Race Horse conclusively established that "the right to hunt on all unoccupied lands of the United States so long as game may be found thereon, ..." reserved a temporary right which was repealed with Wyoming's admission into the Union. 163 U.S. at 504, 16 S. Ct. at 1076. In addition, although the Treaty with the Crows, 1868, reserved a right to hunt on "unoccupied lands;" the lands of the Big Horn National Forest have been "occupied" since the creation of the national forest in 1887. Therefore, we hold that the Tribe and its members are subject to the game laws of Wyoming.
The Supreme Court seems to have a knack for providing very limited scope rulings based on technicalities...short of that - I see no way Wyoming prevails.
Of course, in this case the defendant uses Ward vs Racehorse for their bases of appeal.
Ha. Whoops. It was the Plaintiff appealing in the above mentioned case.
The Crow Tribe and Thomas Ten Bear
Post by: idahohuntr on January 15, 2019, 07:37:56 PM
They can hunt the Montana side of the bighorns ,which is on the reservation, clear into I think jan or feb on winter range. Not a big deal to see 50 bulls herded up on winter range at that time of year.Anyways it is on reservation land and I totally agree with them doing whatever the tribe thinks is right. Wyoming is another ball game and that I think it is a pretty tough draw area for elk. How can Wyoming manage that for a quality limited hunt and allow the crow to hunt that almost year around? I agree with the different tribes having some hunting rights etc but you have to draw the line somewhere especially when it comes to game management.Simple - Wyoming does not have jurisdiction over a sovereign that has a treaty entered into by the United States.
Closer to home - we have Treaty Tribes that hunt all kinds of special draw/quality elk units in Idaho, Washington, Oregon etc. and the states have no jurisdiction over them (when they hunt, how many bulls they kill etc.).
I know that occurs in Idaho and Washington that is my point. Exactly how well do you think that's working with unlimited tribal hunts in so called controlled hunt areas in Idaho and Washington? At some point we have to have common sense. We cant go back and hunt like we did 200 years ago and at a minimum their should be cooperation between tribes and other wildlife managers to achieve the same goals for the animals . I think you are usually supporting science based wildlife management and seem to believe in the biologist. How does that work allowing unchecked hunting by certain groups? I SUPPORT tribal hunting rights but we have to use common sense applying 200 year old treaty rights to todays world game management.
Good post. I agree 100%.
I agree, we all win when there is good cooperation between all managers (State, federal, tribal) to ensure the resource is well managed. I wish there were greater cooperation - but it also wasn't that long ago that state agencies were harassing and arresting Tribal members for exercising their rights...so I think we can all understand some of the challenges in cooperation. Having an understanding of their treaty rights I know it's a non-starter to just say to them "follow our harvest regulations and objectives". Also, keep in mind that Tribal harvest is probably a small percentage of total deer/elk harvest in most states...even if there are some egregious examples of members harvesting large numbers in areas like feed stations and quality units.
The fallacy there is the presumption that treaty rights were granted by the US...that is not how Tribal treaties are interpreted by the courts. Tribes explicitly reserved the right to fish in their usual and accustomed areas and to hunt on open/unclaimed lands. Fishing and hunting were so integral to them that while they ceded claims to millions of acres of lands - worth billions, if not trillions today - they would only do so with the assurance that their rights/ability to hunt and fish would be maintained in perpetuity. It had nothing to do with equal consideration to other citizens.There again - what treaty right exists if the interpretation is the tribe is limited to hunt and fish like you and me?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...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.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.
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.
That is the treaty right. To be treated equally. Consider the time when the treaties were written. Natives were not treated equally and the guarantee they could hunt off reservation like anyone else meant something. Seasons and bag limits came later. That was an unthought-of concept at the time when the treaties were signed.
Post by: STIKNSTRINGBOW on January 15, 2019, 08:27:36 PM
Just out of curiosity, I looked up the Treaty of Fort Laramie, and the only mention of hunting was..
Quote
ARTICLE XI.so I started looking further and found this
In consideration of the advantages and benefits conferred by this treaty and the many pledges of friendship by the United States, the tribes who are parties to this agreement hereby stipulate that they will relinquish all right to occupy permanently the territory outside their reservations as herein defined, but yet reserve the right to hunt on any lands north of North Platte, and on the Republican Fork of the Smoky Hill river, so long as the buffalo may range thereon in such numbers as to justify the chase.
Quote
Because of the Sioux massacre on the Pawnee in southern Nebraska during a hunting expedition in 1873, the US banned such hunts outside the reservation. Thus, the US decision nullified a part of Article XI.[49]:8
Post by: Stein on January 15, 2019, 08:35:33 PM
Post by: PlateauNDN on January 15, 2019, 10:59:49 PM
The US also killed all of the buffalo which rendered the rights lost.
They did not kill all of the bison. YNP has the last herds of pure genetic wild bison.
Here's an excerpt from the transcript of the oral argument last week that I found interesting. " JUSTICE GORSUCH: -- but the treaty is express, and it contemplates no conservation. It contemplates the complete elimination of the game by the white man.
MR. LIU: Yeah.
JUSTICE GORSUCH: So, if the white man
gets to eliminate the game, again, counsel for the government, how come the Indian may not?
That's a very good question indeed. :chuckle:
Post by: STIKNSTRINGBOW on January 16, 2019, 11:18:34 AM
My family settled in Montana and hunted for sustenance also.
I can trace my family back to Alexander Hamilton, my predecessors were part of the western expansion.
They fought in wars, both foreign and domestic.
.
The "right" to hunt has not been taken away, they have the right.
Allowing that "right" to be interpreted as the ability to be unregulated is an abuse.
It's like saying the second amendment is about sporting arms, when it was written to preserve a militia.
But that's a different topic...
Post by: Stein on January 16, 2019, 11:43:50 AM
Post by: idahohuntr on January 16, 2019, 01:07:02 PM
My biggest question is, if they are allowed to hunt with the same rights as everyone else, how is that breaking the treaty?You have a privilege to hunt - privileges can be taken away. A treaty right to hunt is much more substantive...Treaties are the supreme law of the land, or so says the US Constitution. And as I noted previously, hunting rights were explicitly reserved by Tribes - they were not some gift from the US - which is sort of what you imply above by stating that we will still let them hunt, just under our state laws.
My family settled in Montana and hunted for sustenance also.
I can trace my family back to Alexander Hamilton, my predecessors were part of the western expansion.
They fought in wars, both foreign and domestic.
.
The "right" to hunt has not been taken away, they have the right.
Allowing that "right" to be interpreted as the ability to be unregulated is an abuse.
It's like saying the second amendment is about sporting arms, when it was written to preserve a militia.
But that's a different topic...
So - on a number of fronts, I think your logic is inconsistent with the purpose and exercise of treaty rights.
Post by: STIKNSTRINGBOW on January 16, 2019, 02:21:05 PM
You have a privilege to hunt - privileges can be taken away. A treaty right to hunt is much more substantive...Treaties are the supreme law of the land, or so says the US Constitution. And as I noted previously, hunting rights were explicitly reserved by Tribes - they were not some gift from the US - which is sort of what you imply above by stating that we will still let them hunt, just under our state laws.However, a privilege is a special entitlement granted to a restricted group or person, either by birth or on a conditional basis, and can be revoked. By contrast, a right is irrevocable and inherently held by all human beings.
So - on a number of fronts, I think your logic is inconsistent with the purpose and exercise of treaty rights.
I am not saying we "let" them hunt, I am saying they are allowed to hunt just like everyone else.
The ability is not taken away, merely that in the interest of conservation and preservation and game management objectives they should follow game department regulations in the areas not controlled by their allocated reservations.
The "right" to hunt with impunity on areas open to the general public is detrimental to conservation efforts.
In a time before season structure and limits they were promised an ability to hunt, and were encouraged to practice farming.
They were provided with tools, seed, etc. with the intent to be able to still feed their families and reduce their need to depend on hunting/gathering.
The intent of the treaties was to reduce/eliminate conflicts with settlers, not provide them with open availability to do whatever they wanted, then claim it as a "right"
Post by: baker5150 on January 16, 2019, 02:29:26 PM
My biggest question is, if they are allowed to hunt with the same rights as everyone else, how is that breaking the treaty?You have a privilege to hunt - privileges can be taken away. A treaty right to hunt is much more substantive...Treaties are the supreme law of the land, or so says the US Constitution. And as I noted previously, hunting rights were explicitly reserved by Tribes - they were not some gift from the US - which is sort of what you imply above by stating that we will still let them hunt, just under our state laws.
My family settled in Montana and hunted for sustenance also.
I can trace my family back to Alexander Hamilton, my predecessors were part of the western expansion.
They fought in wars, both foreign and domestic.
.
The "right" to hunt has not been taken away, they have the right.
Allowing that "right" to be interpreted as the ability to be unregulated is an abuse.
It's like saying the second amendment is about sporting arms, when it was written to preserve a militia.
But that's a different topic...
So - on a number of fronts, I think your logic is inconsistent with the purpose and exercise of treaty rights.
There are quite a few states that the "Right to hunt" is written into their constitutions. The 2 states in this case included.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on January 16, 2019, 02:44:26 PM
My biggest question is, if they are allowed to hunt with the same rights as everyone else, how is that breaking the treaty?You have a privilege to hunt - privileges can be taken away. A treaty right to hunt is much more substantive...Treaties are the supreme law of the land, or so says the US Constitution. And as I noted previously, hunting rights were explicitly reserved by Tribes - they were not some gift from the US - which is sort of what you imply above by stating that we will still let them hunt, just under our state laws.
My family settled in Montana and hunted for sustenance also.
I can trace my family back to Alexander Hamilton, my predecessors were part of the western expansion.
They fought in wars, both foreign and domestic.
.
The "right" to hunt has not been taken away, they have the right.
Allowing that "right" to be interpreted as the ability to be unregulated is an abuse.
It's like saying the second amendment is about sporting arms, when it was written to preserve a militia.
But that's a different topic...
So - on a number of fronts, I think your logic is inconsistent with the purpose and exercise of treaty rights.
Just for the sake of argument, I'd say, I agree, treaty rights are much more substantive, but proper management guarantees that there will be animals to hunt and therefore protects the right and ability to hunt. If there are no animals, that right doesn't mean much. If I gave you the right to hunt for gold in my yard, it would be meaningless.
Post by: idahohuntr on January 16, 2019, 03:15:26 PM
If US v Wa wouldn't have tied 4-4 we could have had some clarification on that point...clearly many tribes believe governments have not done enough to protect the resources that make those rights meaningful...e.g., allowing culverts that block salmon.My biggest question is, if they are allowed to hunt with the same rights as everyone else, how is that breaking the treaty?You have a privilege to hunt - privileges can be taken away. A treaty right to hunt is much more substantive...Treaties are the supreme law of the land, or so says the US Constitution. And as I noted previously, hunting rights were explicitly reserved by Tribes - they were not some gift from the US - which is sort of what you imply above by stating that we will still let them hunt, just under our state laws.
My family settled in Montana and hunted for sustenance also.
I can trace my family back to Alexander Hamilton, my predecessors were part of the western expansion.
They fought in wars, both foreign and domestic.
.
The "right" to hunt has not been taken away, they have the right.
Allowing that "right" to be interpreted as the ability to be unregulated is an abuse.
It's like saying the second amendment is about sporting arms, when it was written to preserve a militia.
But that's a different topic...
So - on a number of fronts, I think your logic is inconsistent with the purpose and exercise of treaty rights.
Just for the sake of argument, I'd say, I agree, treaty rights are much more substantive, but proper management guarantees that there will be animals to hunt and therefore protects the right and ability to hunt. If there are no animals, that right doesn't mean much. If I gave you the right to hunt for gold in my yard, it would be meaningless.
States do have the power to stop Tribal harvest for conservation necessity...but the bar is high to go that route.
Post by: PlateauNDN on January 16, 2019, 03:17:19 PM
Post by: STIKNSTRINGBOW on January 16, 2019, 04:05:35 PM
Post by: idaho guy on January 17, 2019, 09:36:49 AM
My biggest question is, if they are allowed to hunt with the same rights as everyone else, how is that breaking the treaty?You have a privilege to hunt - privileges can be taken away. A treaty right to hunt is much more substantive...Treaties are the supreme law of the land, or so says the US Constitution. And as I noted previously, hunting rights were explicitly reserved by Tribes - they were not some gift from the US - which is sort of what you imply above by stating that we will still let them hunt, just under our state laws.
My family settled in Montana and hunted for sustenance also.
I can trace my family back to Alexander Hamilton, my predecessors were part of the western expansion.
They fought in wars, both foreign and domestic.
.
The "right" to hunt has not been taken away, they have the right.
Allowing that "right" to be interpreted as the ability to be unregulated is an abuse.
It's like saying the second amendment is about sporting arms, when it was written to preserve a militia.
But that's a different topic...
So - on a number of fronts, I think your logic is inconsistent with the purpose and exercise of treaty rights.
In Montana(and Idaho) you have a constitutional RIGHT to hunt and fish. It is not a privilege it is a right. So I think sticks logic is consistent. The treaties were written when there was NO game laws for anyone and no management of the game. Treaties need to be interpreted according to the modern day North American wildlife model. Even the treaties themselves had language that I think limited tribal rights based on the existence of and numbers of game too hunt. On the reservations tribes can do whatever they want and in a lot of cases are amazing at managing the herds. Off reservation they should at least have to work with other wildlife managers to achieve whatever goals have been set. We can argue legal jargon and intent of the parties 200 years ago all day long but we really just need to apply common sense. I know they probably couldn't have even imagined that Idaho would have 1.7 million people living in it today. Its time for common sense not antiquated legal arguments
Post by: idahohuntr on May 20, 2019, 02:07:49 PM
Post by: bigtex on May 20, 2019, 02:11:37 PM
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/gorsuch-joins-liberals-in-win-for-indian-tribe-in-hunting-case
Post by: Whitpirate on May 20, 2019, 03:23:42 PM
Post by: Special T on May 20, 2019, 03:25:11 PM
When do they hit Yellowstone?
That would be quite the stir... has that happend at any of the parks here in wa?
Post by: X-Force on May 20, 2019, 03:37:12 PM
When do they hit Yellowstone?
That would be quite the stir... has that happend at any of the parks here in wa?
I believe natives have rights to hunt certain species in the park.
Post by: X-Force on May 20, 2019, 03:56:11 PM
Just as I predicted....Herrera wins 5-4, Wyoming loses. Crow are free to hunt Bighorn NF without interference from wyoming game and fish...cant get the link to the decision to post.
Not yet. The ruling is just that the treaty is still in effect. There hasn't been a ruling on the definition of "unoccupied."
Post by: Bob33 on May 20, 2019, 04:08:11 PM
In an opinion released today, the Supreme Court ruled that an 1868 treaty between the U.S. and the Crow Tribe could give members of that tribe the right to ignore state hunting regulations and engage in the unregulated take of game beyond the borders of reservation land.
The case of Herrera v. Wyoming was brought to the Supreme Court by Clayvin Herrera, a member of the Crow Tribe and former tribe game warden. Herrera followed a group of elk past the Crow reservation's boundary and ended up taking several bull elk in the Bighorn National Forest in Wyoming.
Herrera asserted his treaty rights as a defense to criminal charges of illegally taking elk out of season. After he lost in state court, Herrera successfully petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to consider his case.
Supreme Court Justices Sotomayor, Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan and Gorsuch agreed with Herrera. They held that the Bighorn National Forest and other federal lands may fall within the scope of an 1868 treaty that permits members of the Crow Tribe to hunt on "unoccupied lands of the United States."
SCI assisted the Wyoming Game and Fish Department in this case, opposing the position of Herrera. SCI filed a "friend of the court" brief to defend the importance of state management authority over game on federal lands. This same principle could apply to 19 other treaties with similar language, spreading the impact to other Tribes and well beyond Wyoming.
In effect, the ruling could give Tribal members the ability to ignore the state hunting regulations. This could threaten wildlife populations. It could also lead to restrictions on non-Native hunters in order to keep harvests within biologically acceptable limits.
The glimmer of hope for state wildlife managers is that the ruling still allows Wyoming to make its case to the Wyoming state court that the state's hunting regulations should override treaty rights for reasons of "conservation necessity."
Four justices, including Justice Alito, Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Thomas and Kavanaugh, filed a dissenting opinion strongly disagreeing with the majority ruling.
SCI argued in our brief that states could be forced to reduce the available harvest for non-tribal hunters since the unregulated take by tribal hunters not only reduces the potential availability of game for all, but also undermines the state wildlife managers' ability to accurately determine the number of animals removed from the population.
SCI will continue to monitor the case and, if needed, will help support Wyoming's efforts to demonstrate the conservation necessity of its game regulations.
Post by: bigtex on May 20, 2019, 04:11:11 PM
There's a US District ruling that actually originated out of an Olympic NP tribal hunting case. In US v Hicks the judge ruled national parks are not open for tribal hunting. In the ruling the judge ruled that:When do they hit Yellowstone?That would be quite the stir... has that happend at any of the parks here in wa?
1. Upon the enactment by Congress of legislation creating the Olympic National Park in 1938, if not before, the land included therein ceased to be "open and unclaimed land," thus terminating the privilege of hunting on Olympic National Park lands.
2. The 1942 legislation, prohibiting all hunting in the Park, terminates the Indian hunting privilege on Olympic National Park lands.
3. Termination of the Indian hunting privilege on Olympic National Park lands does not constitute abrogation.
Now what should be noted is this is a US District Court ruling, it didn't get pushed up to the 9th Circuit or SCOTUS. So technically it just has binding in Western WA, however its not uncommon for judges across the country to use each others precedent in their own cases. So in the future we may see a tribal hunting in a national park case make it to a circuit court or SCOTUS, but as for right now we have US v Hicks which says no hunting in parks.
Post by: idahohuntr on May 20, 2019, 04:37:44 PM
The landowner says they are unoccupied...good luck if WY thinks they stand a chance citing another tribal member hunting the bighorns :chuckle:Just as I predicted....Herrera wins 5-4, Wyoming loses. Crow are free to hunt Bighorn NF without interference from wyoming game and fish...cant get the link to the decision to post.
Not yet. The ruling is just that the treaty is still in effect. There hasn't been a ruling on the definition of "unoccupied."
Post by: sagerat on May 20, 2019, 06:06:07 PM
Supreme Court Ruling Threatens Wildlife And Hunting
In an opinion released today, the Supreme Court ruled that an 1868 treaty between the U.S. and the Crow Tribe could give members of that tribe the right to ignore state hunting regulations and engage in the unregulated take of game beyond the borders of reservation land.
The case of Herrera v. Wyoming was brought to the Supreme Court by Clayvin Herrera, a member of the Crow Tribe and former tribe game warden. Herrera followed a group of elk past the Crow reservation's boundary and ended up taking several bull elk in the Bighorn National Forest in Wyoming.
Herrera asserted his treaty rights as a defense to criminal charges of illegally taking elk out of season. After he lost in state court, Herrera successfully petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to consider his case.
Supreme Court Justices Sotomayor, Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan and Gorsuch agreed with Herrera. They held that the Bighorn National Forest and other federal lands may fall within the scope of an 1868 treaty that permits members of the Crow Tribe to hunt on "unoccupied lands of the United States."
SCI assisted the Wyoming Game and Fish Department in this case, opposing the position of Herrera. SCI filed a "friend of the court" brief to defend the importance of state management authority over game on federal lands. This same principle could apply to 19 other treaties with similar language, spreading the impact to other Tribes and well beyond Wyoming.
In effect, the ruling could give Tribal members the ability to ignore the state hunting regulations. This could threaten wildlife populations. It could also lead to restrictions on non-Native hunters in order to keep harvests within biologically acceptable limits.
The glimmer of hope for state wildlife managers is that the ruling still allows Wyoming to make its case to the Wyoming state court that the state's hunting regulations should override treaty rights for reasons of "conservation necessity."
Four justices, including Justice Alito, Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Thomas and Kavanaugh, filed a dissenting opinion strongly disagreeing with the majority ruling.
SCI argued in our brief that states could be forced to reduce the available harvest for non-tribal hunters since the unregulated take by tribal hunters not only reduces the potential availability of game for all, but also undermines the state wildlife managers' ability to accurately determine the number of animals removed from the population.
SCI will continue to monitor the case and, if needed, will help support Wyoming's efforts to demonstrate the conservation necessity of its game regulations.
Thanks SCI. Anyone on here who’s not a member should join asap.
Post by: CarbonHunter on May 20, 2019, 07:16:59 PM
There's a US District ruling that actually originated out of an Olympic NP tribal hunting case. In US v Hicks the judge ruled national parks are not open for tribal hunting. In the ruling the judge ruled that:When do they hit Yellowstone?That would be quite the stir... has that happend at any of the parks here in wa?
1. Upon the enactment by Congress of legislation creating the Olympic National Park in 1938, if not before, the land included therein ceased to be "open and unclaimed land," thus terminating the privilege of hunting on Olympic National Park lands.
2. The 1942 legislation, prohibiting all hunting in the Park, terminates the Indian hunting privilege on Olympic National Park lands.
3. Termination of the Indian hunting privilege on Olympic National Park lands does not constitute abrogation.
Now what should be noted is this is a US District Court ruling, it didn't get pushed up to the 9th Circuit or SCOTUS. So technically it just has binding in Western WA, however its not uncommon for judges across the country to use each others precedent in their own cases. So in the future we may see a tribal hunting in a national park case make it to a circuit court or SCOTUS, but as for right now we have US v Hicks which says no hunting in parks.
So your saying the muckleshoots have never hunted in the mt Rainer np since this ruling took effect in the 40’s? These rulings don’t stop the tribes, they just use them if they go their way like it did today.
Post by: idahohuntr on May 20, 2019, 07:45:49 PM
I'd strongly suggest the fellas at SCI take a good hard look at the case law on conservation necessity before they waste any money and effort on pursuing that issue...I'll give em a little hint...telling tribes they have to follow state hunting laws (unless elk are near extinction) is a dead end.Supreme Court Ruling Threatens Wildlife And Hunting
In an opinion released today, the Supreme Court ruled that an 1868 treaty between the U.S. and the Crow Tribe could give members of that tribe the right to ignore state hunting regulations and engage in the unregulated take of game beyond the borders of reservation land.
The case of Herrera v. Wyoming was brought to the Supreme Court by Clayvin Herrera, a member of the Crow Tribe and former tribe game warden. Herrera followed a group of elk past the Crow reservation's boundary and ended up taking several bull elk in the Bighorn National Forest in Wyoming.
Herrera asserted his treaty rights as a defense to criminal charges of illegally taking elk out of season. After he lost in state court, Herrera successfully petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to consider his case.
Supreme Court Justices Sotomayor, Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan and Gorsuch agreed with Herrera. They held that the Bighorn National Forest and other federal lands may fall within the scope of an 1868 treaty that permits members of the Crow Tribe to hunt on "unoccupied lands of the United States."
SCI assisted the Wyoming Game and Fish Department in this case, opposing the position of Herrera. SCI filed a "friend of the court" brief to defend the importance of state management authority over game on federal lands. This same principle could apply to 19 other treaties with similar language, spreading the impact to other Tribes and well beyond Wyoming.
In effect, the ruling could give Tribal members the ability to ignore the state hunting regulations. This could threaten wildlife populations. It could also lead to restrictions on non-Native hunters in order to keep harvests within biologically acceptable limits.
The glimmer of hope for state wildlife managers is that the ruling still allows Wyoming to make its case to the Wyoming state court that the state's hunting regulations should override treaty rights for reasons of "conservation necessity."
Four justices, including Justice Alito, Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Thomas and Kavanaugh, filed a dissenting opinion strongly disagreeing with the majority ruling.
SCI argued in our brief that states could be forced to reduce the available harvest for non-tribal hunters since the unregulated take by tribal hunters not only reduces the potential availability of game for all, but also undermines the state wildlife managers' ability to accurately determine the number of animals removed from the population.
SCI will continue to monitor the case and, if needed, will help support Wyoming's efforts to demonstrate the conservation necessity of its game regulations.
Thanks SCI. Anyone on here who’s not a member should join asap.
Post by: KFhunter on May 20, 2019, 07:53:52 PM
Post by: Tbar on May 20, 2019, 07:58:38 PM
what they need to do is revisit the "in common with" language of the treatyYou know how that was interpreted in previous case law right?
Post by: idahohuntr on May 20, 2019, 08:11:16 PM
:chuckle: Very few people read much about treaties.what they need to do is revisit the "in common with" language of the treatyYou know how that was interpreted in previous case law right?
Gorsuch really laid out the ignorance of people debating "in common with" language as meaning tribes treaties allow them to have equal treatment as the rest of the citizens...it was in last months Yakama ruling. Good read.
Post by: idaho guy on May 20, 2019, 09:56:25 PM
Post by: KFhunter on May 21, 2019, 10:29:15 AM
what they need to do is revisit the "in common with" language of the treatyYou know how that was interpreted in previous case law right?
Yes I am aware of that, hence the word "revisit" in my post above.
Post by: KFhunter on May 21, 2019, 10:38:32 AM
:chuckle: Very few people read much about treaties.what they need to do is revisit the "in common with" language of the treatyYou know how that was interpreted in previous case law right?
Gorsuch really laid out the ignorance of people debating "in common with" language as meaning tribes treaties allow them to have equal treatment as the rest of the citizens...it was in last months Yakama ruling. Good read.
The justice also observed that Wyoming can still press the argument that “the application of state conservation regulations to Crow Tribe members exercising the 1868 Treaty right is necessary for conservation.” The high court sent the case back to Wyoming state court for further litigation which could resolve these issues.
But Sotomayor’s opinion “takes a puzzling course,” Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote in a lengthy dissent. He was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Clarence Thomas and Brett M. Kavanaugh.
He said Crow tribe members could still be precluded from asserting the treaty right for reasons Sotomayor’s opinion didn’t address.
So the majority’s decision to “plow ahead” on the treaty interpretation issue, Alito wrote, “is hard to understand, and its discourse on that issue is likely, in the end, to be so much wasted ink.”
The case is Herrera v. Wyoming, U.S., 17-532, vacated, remanded 5/20/19.
Post by: idahohuntr on May 21, 2019, 10:50:23 AM
That’s a shame. The crow is a huge reservation but doesn’t have a lot of members so it probably won’t be devastating to the herd on the Wyoming side.They really have no need to hunt off the reservation because the hunting on the crow side is good and the reservation is huge. I worry more about the precedent for other areas. You were right idahhunter but does it feel good? Someday I would hope common sense would prevail on some of these cases. It doesn’t look like it will wildlife and proper management are the losers here. I know it’s not over I guess we will see how the rest goes.I support a system and a ruling that ensures a promise made by the United States is kept...treaties are the supreme law of the land and I'm glad Trumps solicitor argued against the stupidity of Wyomings arguments. All that said, I hope there is comanagement between states and tribes...but given how WY has treated tribes for decades, I could understand Tribes telling the state to go pound sand.
Post by: idahohuntr on May 21, 2019, 10:55:42 AM
To invoke conservation necessity is a high bar...and conservation cant be balanced on the backs of tribes. Wyoming would basically have to end general season hunting before they could even try and argue conservation regulations against tribal harvest. Actually, my statement only applies if WY wants to prevail...obviously they can try any number of losing arguments they would like. :chuckle::chuckle: Very few people read much about treaties.what they need to do is revisit the "in common with" language of the treatyYou know how that was interpreted in previous case law right?
Gorsuch really laid out the ignorance of people debating "in common with" language as meaning tribes treaties allow them to have equal treatment as the rest of the citizens...it was in last months Yakama ruling. Good read.
The justice also observed that Wyoming can still press the argument that “the application of state conservation regulations to Crow Tribe members exercising the 1868 Treaty right is necessary for conservation.” The high court sent the case back to Wyoming state court for further litigation which could resolve these issues.
But Sotomayor’s opinion “takes a puzzling course,” Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote in a lengthy dissent. He was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Clarence Thomas and Brett M. Kavanaugh.
He said Crow tribe members could still be precluded from asserting the treaty right for reasons Sotomayor’s opinion didn’t address.
So the majority’s decision to “plow ahead” on the treaty interpretation issue, Alito wrote, “is hard to understand, and its discourse on that issue is likely, in the end, to be so much wasted ink.”
The case is Herrera v. Wyoming, U.S., 17-532, vacated, remanded 5/20/19.
Post by: idaho guy on May 21, 2019, 11:09:22 AM
That’s a shame. The crow is a huge reservation but doesn’t have a lot of members so it probably won’t be devastating to the herd on the Wyoming side.They really have no need to hunt off the reservation because the hunting on the crow side is good and the reservation is huge. I worry more about the precedent for other areas. You were right idahhunter but does it feel good? Someday I would hope common sense would prevail on some of these cases. It doesn’t look like it will wildlife and proper management are the losers here. I know it’s not over I guess we will see how the rest goes.I support a system and a ruling that ensures a promise made by the United States is kept...treaties are the supreme law of the land and I'm glad Trumps solicitor argued against the stupidity of Wyomings arguments. All that said, I hope there is comanagement between states and tribes...but given how WY has treated tribes for decades, I could understand Tribes telling the state to go pound sand.
Ok I agree that the promise should be kept. Totally disagree with how they are interpreting these promises when it comes to modern day management of game. I don’t think the crow won much given the unlimited hunting they are entitled to on what is a game rich and huge reservation already. I know for a fact game management just lost big time. It’s not over yet. I think the crow and other tribes should continue to do whatever they want on their lands but not on national forest. I don’t care if they get special treatment off the reservation but at least they should be required to cooperate with and abide by regulations, seasons and even some kind of bag limits.
Post by: KFhunter on May 21, 2019, 11:12:11 AM
Post by: KFhunter on May 21, 2019, 11:16:14 AM
That’s a shame. The crow is a huge reservation but doesn’t have a lot of members so it probably won’t be devastating to the herd on the Wyoming side.They really have no need to hunt off the reservation because the hunting on the crow side is good and the reservation is huge. I worry more about the precedent for other areas. You were right idahhunter but does it feel good? Someday I would hope common sense would prevail on some of these cases. It doesn’t look like it will wildlife and proper management are the losers here. I know it’s not over I guess we will see how the rest goes.I support a system and a ruling that ensures a promise made by the United States is kept...treaties are the supreme law of the land and I'm glad Trumps solicitor argued against the stupidity of Wyomings arguments. All that said, I hope there is comanagement between states and tribes...but given how WY has treated tribes for decades, I could understand Tribes telling the state to go pound sand.
Ok I agree that the promise should be kept. Totally disagree with how they are interpreting these promises when it comes to modern day management of game. I don’t think the crow won much given the unlimited hunting they are entitled to on what is a game rich and huge reservation already. I know for a fact game management just lost big time. It’s not over yet. I think the crow and other tribes should continue to do whatever they want on their lands but not on national forest. I don’t care if they get special treatment off the reservation but at least they should be required to cooperate with and abide by regulations, seasons and even some kind of bag limits.
It's like the courts suffer from "white guilt" from past wrongs, so are ruling everything in favor of the tribes even though when you read the treaties it's clear that's not whats meant by them especially when you consider the time frame in which is was written. There is no such thing as "unoccupied" lands taken in that context, back then there was miles and miles of territory that was US territory unclaimed, it's all claimed now.
One cannot just hitch a wagon and go settle down somewhere on a new homestead.
Yes, the treaties are the law of the land and it's SCOTUS' responsibility to determine what that law is in the context and time frame in which it was written.
Post by: Platensek-po on May 21, 2019, 11:25:25 AM
That’s a shame. The crow is a huge reservation but doesn’t have a lot of members so it probably won’t be devastating to the herd on the Wyoming side.They really have no need to hunt off the reservation because the hunting on the crow side is good and the reservation is huge. I worry more about the precedent for other areas. You were right idahhunter but does it feel good? Someday I would hope common sense would prevail on some of these cases. It doesn’t look like it will wildlife and proper management are the losers here. I know it’s not over I guess we will see how the rest goes.I support a system and a ruling that ensures a promise made by the United States is kept...treaties are the supreme law of the land and I'm glad Trumps solicitor argued against the stupidity of Wyomings arguments. All that said, I hope there is comanagement between states and tribes...but given how WY has treated tribes for decades, I could understand Tribes telling the state to go pound sand.
Ok I agree that the promise should be kept. Totally disagree with how they are interpreting these promises when it comes to modern day management of game. I don’t think the crow won much given the unlimited hunting they are entitled to on what is a game rich and huge reservation already. I know for a fact game management just lost big time. It’s not over yet. I think the crow and other tribes should continue to do whatever they want on their lands but not on national forest. I don’t care if they get special treatment off the reservation but at least they should be required to cooperate with and abide by regulations, seasons and even some kind of bag limits.
It's like the courts suffer from "white guilt" from past wrongs, so are ruling everything in favor of the tribes even though when you read the treaties it's clear that's not whats meant by them especially when you consider the time frame in which is was written. There is no such thing as "unoccupied" lands taken in that context, back then there was miles and miles of territory that was US territory unclaimed, it's all claimed now.
One cannot just hitch a wagon and go settle down somewhere on a new homestead.
Yes, the treaties are the law of the land and it's SCOTUS' responsibility to determine what that law is in the context and time frame in which it was written.
You realize that’s an argument the left uses with the 2nd amendment right?? Are you going to allow a revision of that given the time frame it was written in?
Post by: KFhunter on May 21, 2019, 12:00:09 PM
thus today every American is granted the right to bear arms, in the eyes of our founding fathers we are all part of a militia.
Quote
By militia, Madison obviously meant every able-bodied man capable of bearing arms. This, undoubtedly, was also the meaning of "militia" when the Second Amendment was written. Across the nation, Federalists echoed our Founding Fathers' insistence that the right to keep and bear arms become part of the Constitution.
today the left would have the term "militia" be a dirty word, they've tried to change the meaning to mean that a militia is anti-government, but that isn't necessarily the case.
At any rate the meaning of the word has evolved and the anti's would have us believe that the 2nd amendment doesn't grant the right for all Americans to bear arms because we aren't a militia anymore.
So its a good thing that SCOTUS went back to the founding fathers meaning of the word militia, or we wouldn't be having the 2nd amendment like we have today.
let's have any further conversation about this topic here:
https://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,239241.0/topicseen.html
So as not to hijack this thread about treaty rights
Post by: idaho guy on May 21, 2019, 12:20:40 PM
That’s a shame. The crow is a huge reservation but doesn’t have a lot of members so it probably won’t be devastating to the herd on the Wyoming side.They really have no need to hunt off the reservation because the hunting on the crow side is good and the reservation is huge. I worry more about the precedent for other areas. You were right idahhunter but does it feel good? Someday I would hope common sense would prevail on some of these cases. It doesn’t look like it will wildlife and proper management are the losers here. I know it’s not over I guess we will see how the rest goes.I support a system and a ruling that ensures a promise made by the United States is kept...treaties are the supreme law of the land and I'm glad Trumps solicitor argued against the stupidity of Wyomings arguments. All that said, I hope there is comanagement between states and tribes...but given how WY has treated tribes for decades, I could understand Tribes telling the state to go pound sand.
Ok I agree that the promise should be kept. Totally disagree with how they are interpreting these promises when it comes to modern day management of game. I don’t think the crow won much given the unlimited hunting they are entitled to on what is a game rich and huge reservation already. I know for a fact game management just lost big time. It’s not over yet. I think the crow and other tribes should continue to do whatever they want on their lands but not on national forest. I don’t care if they get special treatment off the reservation but at least they should be required to cooperate with and abide by regulations, seasons and even some kind of bag limits.
It's like the courts suffer from "white guilt" from past wrongs, so are ruling everything in favor of the tribes even though when you read the treaties it's clear that's not whats meant by them especially when you consider the time frame in which is was written. There is no such thing as "unoccupied" lands taken in that context, back then there was miles and miles of territory that was US territory unclaimed, it's all claimed now.
One cannot just hitch a wagon and go settle down somewhere on a new homestead.
Yes, the treaties are the law of the land and it's SCOTUS' responsibility to determine what that law is in the context and time frame in which it was written.
I agree with the white guilt aspect otherwise I can’t get my arms around their
modern day interpretations of hundred year old treaties. Indians did get screwed in a lot of circumstances way back when but why do deer and elk have to suffer for it. I would say modern tribes have been compensated for past wrongs and we shouldn’t throw away common sense. I am for tribal hunting rights within reason and in conjunction with proper management of herds. Why punish the elk what did they do :chuckle::chuckle: If it’s traditional centuries ago hunting land then let them hunt off the reservation traditionally with horses and long bows not diesel trucks and 300 ultra mags
Post by: RJW on May 21, 2019, 12:53:35 PM
Post by: Tbar on May 21, 2019, 01:00:58 PM
Supreme Court Ruling Threatens Wildlife And HuntingWho is the author of this Bob?
In an opinion released today, the Supreme Court ruled that an 1868 treaty between the U.S. and the Crow Tribe could give members of that tribe the right to ignore state hunting regulations and engage in the unregulated take of game beyond the borders of reservation land.
The case of Herrera v. Wyoming was brought to the Supreme Court by Clayvin Herrera, a member of the Crow Tribe and former tribe game warden. Herrera followed a group of elk past the Crow reservation's boundary and ended up taking several bull elk in the Bighorn National Forest in Wyoming.
Herrera asserted his treaty rights as a defense to criminal charges of illegally taking elk out of season. After he lost in state court, Herrera successfully petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to consider his case.
Supreme Court Justices Sotomayor, Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan and Gorsuch agreed with Herrera. They held that the Bighorn National Forest and other federal lands may fall within the scope of an 1868 treaty that permits members of the Crow Tribe to hunt on "unoccupied lands of the United States."
SCI assisted the Wyoming Game and Fish Department in this case, opposing the position of Herrera. SCI filed a "friend of the court" brief to defend the importance of state management authority over game on federal lands. This same principle could apply to 19 other treaties with similar language, spreading the impact to other Tribes and well beyond Wyoming.
In effect, the ruling could give Tribal members the ability to ignore the state hunting regulations. This could threaten wildlife populations. It could also lead to restrictions on non-Native hunters in order to keep harvests within biologically acceptable limits.
The glimmer of hope for state wildlife managers is that the ruling still allows Wyoming to make its case to the Wyoming state court that the state's hunting regulations should override treaty rights for reasons of "conservation necessity."
Four justices, including Justice Alito, Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Thomas and Kavanaugh, filed a dissenting opinion strongly disagreeing with the majority ruling.
SCI argued in our brief that states could be forced to reduce the available harvest for non-tribal hunters since the unregulated take by tribal hunters not only reduces the potential availability of game for all, but also undermines the state wildlife managers' ability to accurately determine the number of animals removed from the population.
SCI will continue to monitor the case and, if needed, will help support Wyoming's efforts to demonstrate the conservation necessity of its game regulations.
Post by: Tbar on May 21, 2019, 01:02:42 PM
Supreme Court Ruling Threatens Wildlife And Hunting@Bushcraft
In an opinion released today, the Supreme Court ruled that an 1868 treaty between the U.S. and the Crow Tribe could give members of that tribe the right to ignore state hunting regulations and engage in the unregulated take of game beyond the borders of reservation land.
The case of Herrera v. Wyoming was brought to the Supreme Court by Clayvin Herrera, a member of the Crow Tribe and former tribe game warden. Herrera followed a group of elk past the Crow reservation's boundary and ended up taking several bull elk in the Bighorn National Forest in Wyoming.
Herrera asserted his treaty rights as a defense to criminal charges of illegally taking elk out of season. After he lost in state court, Herrera successfully petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to consider his case.
Supreme Court Justices Sotomayor, Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan and Gorsuch agreed with Herrera. They held that the Bighorn National Forest and other federal lands may fall within the scope of an 1868 treaty that permits members of the Crow Tribe to hunt on "unoccupied lands of the United States."
SCI assisted the Wyoming Game and Fish Department in this case, opposing the position of Herrera. SCI filed a "friend of the court" brief to defend the importance of state management authority over game on federal lands. This same principle could apply to 19 other treaties with similar language, spreading the impact to other Tribes and well beyond Wyoming.
In effect, the ruling could give Tribal members the ability to ignore the state hunting regulations. This could threaten wildlife populations. It could also lead to restrictions on non-Native hunters in order to keep harvests within biologically acceptable limits.
The glimmer of hope for state wildlife managers is that the ruling still allows Wyoming to make its case to the Wyoming state court that the state's hunting regulations should override treaty rights for reasons of "conservation necessity."
Four justices, including Justice Alito, Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Thomas and Kavanaugh, filed a dissenting opinion strongly disagreeing with the majority ruling.
SCI argued in our brief that states could be forced to reduce the available harvest for non-tribal hunters since the unregulated take by tribal hunters not only reduces the potential availability of game for all, but also undermines the state wildlife managers' ability to accurately determine the number of animals removed from the population.
SCI will continue to monitor the case and, if needed, will help support Wyoming's efforts to demonstrate the conservation necessity of its game regulations.
Care to chime in?
Post by: KFhunter on May 21, 2019, 01:10:55 PM
Supreme Court Ruling Threatens Wildlife And HuntingWho is the author of this Bob?
In an opinion released today, the Supreme Court ruled that an 1868 treaty between the U.S. and the Crow Tribe could give members of that tribe the right to ignore state hunting regulations and engage in the unregulated take of game beyond the borders of reservation land.
The case of Herrera v. Wyoming was brought to the Supreme Court by Clayvin Herrera, a member of the Crow Tribe and former tribe game warden. Herrera followed a group of elk past the Crow reservation's boundary and ended up taking several bull elk in the Bighorn National Forest in Wyoming.
Herrera asserted his treaty rights as a defense to criminal charges of illegally taking elk out of season. After he lost in state court, Herrera successfully petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to consider his case.
Supreme Court Justices Sotomayor, Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan and Gorsuch agreed with Herrera. They held that the Bighorn National Forest and other federal lands may fall within the scope of an 1868 treaty that permits members of the Crow Tribe to hunt on "unoccupied lands of the United States."
SCI assisted the Wyoming Game and Fish Department in this case, opposing the position of Herrera. SCI filed a "friend of the court" brief to defend the importance of state management authority over game on federal lands. This same principle could apply to 19 other treaties with similar language, spreading the impact to other Tribes and well beyond Wyoming.
In effect, the ruling could give Tribal members the ability to ignore the state hunting regulations. This could threaten wildlife populations. It could also lead to restrictions on non-Native hunters in order to keep harvests within biologically acceptable limits.
The glimmer of hope for state wildlife managers is that the ruling still allows Wyoming to make its case to the Wyoming state court that the state's hunting regulations should override treaty rights for reasons of "conservation necessity."
Four justices, including Justice Alito, Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Thomas and Kavanaugh, filed a dissenting opinion strongly disagreeing with the majority ruling.
SCI argued in our brief that states could be forced to reduce the available harvest for non-tribal hunters since the unregulated take by tribal hunters not only reduces the potential availability of game for all, but also undermines the state wildlife managers' ability to accurately determine the number of animals removed from the population.
SCI will continue to monitor the case and, if needed, will help support Wyoming's efforts to demonstrate the conservation necessity of its game regulations.
Seriously?
Post by: Tbar on May 21, 2019, 01:38:17 PM
Post by: Tbar on May 21, 2019, 01:38:52 PM
Yes seriously!Supreme Court Ruling Threatens Wildlife And HuntingWho is the author of this Bob?
In an opinion released today, the Supreme Court ruled that an 1868 treaty between the U.S. and the Crow Tribe could give members of that tribe the right to ignore state hunting regulations and engage in the unregulated take of game beyond the borders of reservation land.
The case of Herrera v. Wyoming was brought to the Supreme Court by Clayvin Herrera, a member of the Crow Tribe and former tribe game warden. Herrera followed a group of elk past the Crow reservation's boundary and ended up taking several bull elk in the Bighorn National Forest in Wyoming.
Herrera asserted his treaty rights as a defense to criminal charges of illegally taking elk out of season. After he lost in state court, Herrera successfully petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to consider his case.
Supreme Court Justices Sotomayor, Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan and Gorsuch agreed with Herrera. They held that the Bighorn National Forest and other federal lands may fall within the scope of an 1868 treaty that permits members of the Crow Tribe to hunt on "unoccupied lands of the United States."
SCI assisted the Wyoming Game and Fish Department in this case, opposing the position of Herrera. SCI filed a "friend of the court" brief to defend the importance of state management authority over game on federal lands. This same principle could apply to 19 other treaties with similar language, spreading the impact to other Tribes and well beyond Wyoming.
In effect, the ruling could give Tribal members the ability to ignore the state hunting regulations. This could threaten wildlife populations. It could also lead to restrictions on non-Native hunters in order to keep harvests within biologically acceptable limits.
The glimmer of hope for state wildlife managers is that the ruling still allows Wyoming to make its case to the Wyoming state court that the state's hunting regulations should override treaty rights for reasons of "conservation necessity."
Four justices, including Justice Alito, Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Thomas and Kavanaugh, filed a dissenting opinion strongly disagreeing with the majority ruling.
SCI argued in our brief that states could be forced to reduce the available harvest for non-tribal hunters since the unregulated take by tribal hunters not only reduces the potential availability of game for all, but also undermines the state wildlife managers' ability to accurately determine the number of animals removed from the population.
SCI will continue to monitor the case and, if needed, will help support Wyoming's efforts to demonstrate the conservation necessity of its game regulations.
Seriously?
Post by: KFhunter on May 21, 2019, 01:44:44 PM
Post by: Tbar on May 21, 2019, 01:51:38 PM
https://www.safariclub.org/blog/supreme-court-ruling-threatens-wildlife-and-huntingThank you.
Post by: sockeye66 on May 21, 2019, 03:21:51 PM
what they need to do is revisit the "in common with" language of the treatyexactly!!!
Post by: Badhabit on May 21, 2019, 03:28:56 PM
https://turtletalk.blog/2019/05/20/scotus-reverses-in-herrera-v-wyoming-5-4/?fbclid=IwAR3Ber9DzSFKmXdqFo3Ibzn2WK-yWl2ZC2g53fEEC7rdEH5mqM7pgSz_VZM