collapse

Advertisement


Author Topic: Interesting "Treaty Rights" case in Wyoming  (Read 10501 times)

Online Sitka_Blacktail

  • Non-Hunting Topics
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Frontiersman
  • *****
  • Join Date: Dec 2011
  • Posts: 3318
  • Location: Hoquiam, WA
A man who fears suffering is already suffering from what he fears. ~ Michel de Montaigne

Online Taco280AI

  • Past Sponsor
  • Trade Count: (+5)
  • Frontiersman
  • *****
  • Join Date: Jan 2013
  • Posts: 2674
  • Location: FL350
Re: Interesting "Treaty Rights" case in Wyoming
« Reply #1 on: January 09, 2019, 06:29:28 AM »
It's 2019, would be great if everyone was held to the same laws and regulations.

Offline CarbonHunter

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Longhunter
  • *****
  • Join Date: Aug 2014
  • Posts: 512
  • Location: Carbonado
  • Groups: RMEF, WSB
Re: Interesting "Treaty Rights" case in Wyoming
« Reply #2 on: January 09, 2019, 06:40:20 AM »
It would be nice but with the Trump administration siding with the tribes I don’t see any inroads being made here for equality.

Offline PlateauNDN

  • Y.A.R. Medicine Man
  • Political & Covid-19 Topics
  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Explorer
  • ******
  • Join Date: Mar 2011
  • Posts: 10691
  • Location: God's Country
  • R.I.P. Colockumelk 20130423. Semper Fi!
Re: Interesting "Treaty Rights" case in Wyoming
« Reply #3 on: January 09, 2019, 07:31:16 AM »
Its 2019, it would be nice if the Govt honored its end of the agreement and the States would stay out of what doesn't involve them.
If you can read thank a teacher, If you can read in English thank a Marine! 
Not as Lean, Just as Mean, Still a Marine!
He who shed blood with me shall forever be my brother!

"Around this camp, there's only one Chief; the rest are Indians!"

"Give me 15 more minutes, I was dreaming of Beavers!"

Offline Oh Mah

  • Non-Hunting Topics
  • Trade Count: (+12)
  • Old Salt
  • ******
  • Join Date: Oct 2015
  • Posts: 6614
  • Location: region 3 Montana
Re: Interesting "Treaty Rights" case in Wyoming
« Reply #4 on: January 09, 2019, 08:13:55 AM »
I don't think either side really wants to be held 100% to what the treaties are.  :twocents:
"Boss of the woods"
(this is in reference to the biggie not me).

Offline CarbonHunter

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Longhunter
  • *****
  • Join Date: Aug 2014
  • Posts: 512
  • Location: Carbonado
  • Groups: RMEF, WSB
Re: Interesting "Treaty Rights" case in Wyoming
« Reply #5 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.

Online Humptulips

  • Global Moderator
  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Old Salt
  • *****
  • Join Date: May 2010
  • Posts: 8812
  • Location: Humptulips
    • Washington State Trappers Association
  • Groups: WSTA, NTA, FTA, OTA, WWC, WFW, NRA
Re: Interesting "Treaty Rights" case in Wyoming
« Reply #6 on: January 15, 2019, 08:27:57 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.
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.
Bruce Vandervort

Offline idahohuntr

  • Political & Covid-19 Topics
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Frontiersman
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2011
  • Posts: 3534
Re: Interesting "Treaty Rights" case in Wyoming
« Reply #7 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.
He and his fellow tribal members may still hunt off reservation. They just have to comply with hunting regulations equally applicable to all non-tribal citizens.
I disagree.  What is the treaty right if they are completely limited by the State's recreational harvest regulations?  This would really undermine Treaties and sovereignty - which is at least part of why the United States is supporting the Crow on this.
"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood..." - TR

Offline Special T

  • Truth the new Hate Speech.
  • Business Sponsor
  • Trade Count: (+13)
  • Legend
  • *****
  • Join Date: Aug 2009
  • Posts: 24823
  • Location: Skagit Valley
  • Make it Rain!
    • Silver Arrow Bowmen
    • Silver Arrow Bowmen
Re: Interesting "Treaty Rights" case in Wyoming
« Reply #8 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

In archery we have something like the way of the superior man. When the archer misses the center of the target, he turns round and seeks for the cause of his failure in himself. 

Confucius

Offline STIKNSTRINGBOW

  • Non-Hunting Topics
  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Frontiersman
  • *****
  • Join Date: Aug 2008
  • Posts: 4295
  • Location: Chehalis
    • https://www.facebook.com/stiknstring.bow
Re: Interesting "Treaty Rights" case in Wyoming
« Reply #9 on: January 15, 2019, 09:13:48 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.
He and his fellow tribal members may still hunt off reservation. They just have to comply with hunting regulations equally applicable to all non-tribal citizens.
I disagree.  What is the treaty right if they are completely limited by the State's recreational harvest regulations?  This would really undermine Treaties and sovereignty - which is at least part of why the United States is supporting the Crow on this.
Because the treaties were written when natives were not even considered humans, the words "in common with the citizenry" meant the same as, not divided seperately...
The mountains are calling and I must go."
- John Muir
"I go to nature to be soothed and healed, and to have my senses put in order."
- John Burroughs
NASP Certified Basic Archery Instructor
NASP Certified Basic Archery Instructor Trainer

Offline hunter399

  • Political & Covid-19 Topics
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Old Salt
  • ******
  • Join Date: Feb 2014
  • Posts: 7662
  • Location: In Your Hunting Spot
  • If you know me,then you know I give zero #&$@$
  • Groups: NRA RMEF
Re: Interesting "Treaty Rights" case in Wyoming
« Reply #10 on: January 15, 2019, 09:14:59 AM »
I have mixed feelings on treaty rights.
If some of the reservations had more conservative hunting regs than I would be all for it.on or off reservation hunt.
But with 4 deer a year 2 elk ,bears etc then being able to hunt 6-8 months out of the year .I'm not sure about being on native side with this one.

One thing I think is funny is some native are not recognized by this tribe or that tribe if they skip around to different reservations .so natives can deny some natives of rights .There not even equal with each other.
I rather piss in the wind,then have piss down my back.

Offline PlateauNDN

  • Y.A.R. Medicine Man
  • Political & Covid-19 Topics
  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Explorer
  • ******
  • Join Date: Mar 2011
  • Posts: 10691
  • Location: God's Country
  • R.I.P. Colockumelk 20130423. Semper Fi!
Re: Interesting "Treaty Rights" case in Wyoming
« Reply #11 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.
If you can read thank a teacher, If you can read in English thank a Marine! 
Not as Lean, Just as Mean, Still a Marine!
He who shed blood with me shall forever be my brother!

"Around this camp, there's only one Chief; the rest are Indians!"

"Give me 15 more minutes, I was dreaming of Beavers!"

Offline hunter399

  • Political & Covid-19 Topics
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Old Salt
  • ******
  • Join Date: Feb 2014
  • Posts: 7662
  • Location: In Your Hunting Spot
  • If you know me,then you know I give zero #&$@$
  • Groups: NRA RMEF
Re: Interesting "Treaty Rights" case in Wyoming
« Reply #12 on: January 15, 2019, 09:43:31 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.
Learn something new everyday . :tup:
I wouldn't sweat it I'm sure he will get out of charges and all that.I'm ok with that. :hello:
I rather piss in the wind,then have piss down my back.

Offline idahohuntr

  • Political & Covid-19 Topics
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Frontiersman
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2011
  • Posts: 3534
Re: Interesting "Treaty Rights" case in Wyoming
« Reply #13 on: January 15, 2019, 10:23:08 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.
He and his fellow tribal members may still hunt off reservation. They just have to comply with hunting regulations equally applicable to all non-tribal citizens.
I disagree.  What is the treaty right if they are completely limited by the State's recreational harvest regulations?  This would really undermine Treaties and sovereignty - which is at least part of why the United States is supporting the Crow on this.
Because the treaties were written when natives were not even considered humans, the words "in common with the citizenry" meant the same as, not divided seperately...
There again - what treaty right exists if the interpretation is the tribe is limited to hunt and fish like you and me? 
"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood..." - TR

Offline STIKNSTRINGBOW

  • Non-Hunting Topics
  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Frontiersman
  • *****
  • Join Date: Aug 2008
  • Posts: 4295
  • Location: Chehalis
    • https://www.facebook.com/stiknstring.bow
Re: Interesting "Treaty Rights" case in Wyoming
« Reply #14 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.
« Last Edit: January 15, 2019, 06:15:08 PM by STIKNSTRINGBOW »
The mountains are calling and I must go."
- John Muir
"I go to nature to be soothed and healed, and to have my senses put in order."
- John Burroughs
NASP Certified Basic Archery Instructor
NASP Certified Basic Archery Instructor Trainer

 


* Advertisement

* Recent Topics

Bearpaw Season - Spring 2024 by Machias
[Today at 09:19:44 AM]


SB 5444 signed by Inslee on 03/26 Takes Effect on 06/06/24 by hughjorgan
[Today at 09:03:26 AM]


Walked a cougar down by 2MANY
[Today at 08:56:26 AM]


Springer 2024 Columbia River by WSU
[Today at 08:31:10 AM]


Average by lhrbull
[Today at 07:31:56 AM]


Let’s see your best Washington buck by Pathfinder101
[Today at 07:22:11 AM]


CVA optima V2 LR tapped hole for front sight by Remdawg
[Today at 07:09:22 AM]


Which 12” boat trailer tires? by timberhunter
[Yesterday at 08:22:18 PM]


Lowest power 22 round? by JakeLand
[Yesterday at 08:06:13 PM]


1x scopes vs open sights by JakeLand
[Yesterday at 07:29:35 PM]

SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2024, SimplePortal