U.S. supreme Court case - Big decision ahead

[AvidIndoorsman]

Nice work fellas...

 

[MTGomer]

Let the record state that this is someone with experience working with atleast 7 tribes on around $100 million worth of infrastructure sharing real world life experiences of things he has experienced and seen negatively impact tribes first hand, at the hands of government, being called a racist by a career fed lackey, simply for pointing them out.

Locked.....

 

[Irrelevant]

The ridiculous part of this flare up squabble is that in general you seem to both be on the same side of things. That the tribes have been shafted for a long time. You just both feel strongly about the best ways to address that disparity, they're just different.

 

[AvidIndoorsman]

Does anyone have a list of the tribes that were signatories on this treaty and/or known of other similar treaties? New Perce?

 

[hossblur]

I so didn't want to respond to this, its at best, very thinly veiled racism and I have to say I have lost a boatload of respect for several people on this board over this SC decision. I guess the positive that comes from these threads is that they expose people for what they really are.

I think many need to read the treaty, there is again, a contract in place that states the US Government is responsible for providing certain things to the tribes via the treaty/contract. It also outlines certain rights, including the right to hunt.

It also seems to me that statements like those in the quote above, are making it sound as if the only inefficiencies in the whole world are at the hands of the BIA and tribal members. That's pure bullshit. I can show you mountains of inefficiencies in city, county, state, and federal government, as well as private companies that run like total crap. I can show you households that are run like crap. Its not unique to those living on reservations, at all.

The bigger issue to me, is that while I'm not really that happy with the decision from a purely conservation standpoint, what I am happy about it that the US Government is being held accountable to the treaty signed by the Government and the Tribe. Its not the tribes Treaty, its not the US Governments treaty...its OUR treaty. Both parties negotiated in good faith and both own it...and both are responsible to living up to said agreement.

That includes the US Government providing healthcare, upholding hunting rights, and everything else found in that treaty.

What my ass is tired of, is the city, state, and federal governments NOT living up to their end of bargains. They do it all the time and I'll give some specific examples:

The LWCF is supposed to receive 900 million in funding, yet the Government never fully funds it. Our very own Veterans are supposed to have sufficient medical care, promised by the Government when they signed their names to serve. Yet, our lovely politicians provide them with very sketchy medical care. Governors sign MOU's and break them at will. Its well past time that someone starts holding the people we elect to represent us accountable. Accountable to THEIR agreements and THEIR contracts. The Crow Tribe taking this to court and winning, I say good for them.

I'm happy that the rights granted in the treaty were upheld by the USSC, but at the same time, concerned with what exercising those rights may look like. Its well past time the Government is held accountable, because many times they aren't and I've grown tired of it.

Sorry Buzz, but it is subtle racism, however it's the racism of low expectations that your displaying. . Natives were NOT the only group that experienced violence, or dislocation. Or did we miss Africans displaced and drug to America. Or Chinese. Or........

Let's not forget, we also took wide swaths of ground from Mexico at the point of a gun. In fact, one can argue we took the entire country through violence. History did not start in 1860. Nor has time stood still. Every acre of homesteaded land at one time "belonged" to a tribe. We sure as he'll didnt buy it from them, and neither did the French or English, whom we inherited it from.

This is yet another case of States being dictated to by the Federal Government. Those elk belong to you as a Wyoming Resident. Not SCOTUS. And not a sovereign nation. They may be free to "hunt" unoccupied lands, but to pretend we should be held to a treaty as to the definition of hunting in the 1860's transposed into 2019 is asinine. In 1860 EVERYONE. could hunt unoccupied lands with no bag or season. Times changed. The North American model did not exist at the time of this treaty. It does now. They are still free to hunt, but there was zero definition of what hunting meant.

 

[Addicting]

A few years ago the State Gov had a law on the books entitling Soldiers to get hay pay for their horses. Obviously no one takes their horse to a Muster anymore but it was still a law. So someone made a stink about it and we all got paid hay pay that year. That law was quickly amended IAW the change in times.

Point is the treaty needs to be enforced but also needs to be redone/amended with the current conservation model. Unfortunately, this process is going to happen thru the courts with lawyers and not Biologist in the field.

There is zero sense in getting all wrapped up around the axle on this guy’s. No reason to call each other racist or a lackey. We can all agree this is not ideal but it is what we have to deal with. Use your energy to write the Governors showing support for your point of view.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

The only way the treaty can be modified is by the tribes and/or by congress. The courts can only interpret the treaty.

 

[BuzzH]

Sorry Buzz, but it is subtle racism, however it's the racism of low expectations that your displaying. . Natives were NOT the only group that experienced violence, or dislocation. Or did we miss Africans displaced and drug to America. Or Chinese. Or........

Let's not forget, we also took wide swaths of ground from Mexico at the point of a gun. In fact, one can argue we took the entire country through violence. History did not start in 1860. Nor has time stood still. Every acre of homesteaded land at one time "belonged" to a tribe. We sure as he'll didnt buy it from them, and neither did the French or English, whom we inherited it from.

This is yet another case of States being dictated to by the Federal Government. Those elk belong to you as a Wyoming Resident. Not SCOTUS. And not a sovereign nation. They may be free to "hunt" unoccupied lands, but to pretend we should be held to a treaty as to the definition of hunting in the 1860's transposed into 2019 is asinine. In 1860 EVERYONE. could hunt unoccupied lands with no bag or season. Times changed. The North American model did not exist at the time of this treaty. It does now. They are still free to hunt, but there was zero definition of what hunting meant.

Not everyone in 1868 signed a treaty specifying they could hunt unoccupied lands either, the Crow Tribe did. If you have such a document, I suggest you produce it or give up that argument. I also disagree its "asinine" to expect the government to live up to a document they signed, a treaty they agreed to. Show me an expiration date on the treaty, or find a better argument. By that line of thinking, should we rip up old water rights and re-appropriate them to reflect modern times? I mean surely, we cant expect water rights signed in the 1800's to be relevant in 2019, can we? Should we just take back those lands that were given away to the railroads? How about the lands given away via that antiquated homestead act? How about patented mining claims...that stupid old rule, I want those lands back too, we need to reflect 2019 values.

Your argument holds no merit, and that's more than obvious as per the SCOTUS ruling. They ruled the treaty in regard to hunting rights applies to 2019, same as it did in 1868.

Also, if Federal over-reach happened, it happened in 1868 when they allowed Government representatives to negotiate a treaty, 22 years before Wyoming was a State. The SCOTUS got this one right in regard to validating the hunting rights of the treaty.

You don't have to like it, but that's the way it is.

 

[antlerradar]

"Use your energy to write the Governors showing support for your point of view." Addicting


People need to be contacting the Montana Governor right now before he folds and gives away the public ranch.

 

[BuzzH]

Wow, you guys lost me.

Any way before this is locked. I am thinking that the only way out of this might be buying the treaty rights back. Like a contract, you honor it or buy it back.

That's a possibility, but not very likely to happen.

Couple questions, what would those rights into perpetuity be worth, and where would the Government come up with that kind of money?

If I were a member of the Tribe...the US Government couldn't print enough money to even make me consider selling my rights. In particular for what I had to give up to retain what little I have left.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

This is yet another case of States being dictated to by the Federal Government. Those elk belong to you as a Wyoming Resident. Not SCOTUS. And not a sovereign nation. They may be free to "hunt" unoccupied lands, but to pretend we should be held to a treaty as to the definition of hunting in the 1860's transposed into 2019 is asinine. In 1860 EVERYONE. could hunt unoccupied lands with no bag or season. Times changed. The North American model did not exist at the time of this treaty. It does now. They are still free to hunt, but there was zero definition of what hunting meant.

Sorry but this logic doesn’t fly. The federal government has every right to negotiate that treaty. How in the hell is it federal overreach if the state of Wyoming didn’t even exist?

You are wrong, the state of Wyoming does not own the wildlife. They hold them in trust for the people of the state. SCOTUS made no determination on this. They merely ruled the Crow Treaty gave the tribe access to elk on the Bighorn Forest because it fell under the unoccupied lands.

 

[BuzzH]

Does anyone have a list of the tribes that were signatories on this treaty and/or known of other similar treaties? New Perce?

Milestone Documents | National Archives

www.ourdocuments.gov

 

[3855WIN]

For those that have studied the issue, could Wyoming legally require Crows to purchase a non resident hunting liscense? How about follow season dates?
I understand that off reservation hunting rights were given, but does that make year round, night hunting, and no liscense ok?

 

[BuzzH]

Does anyone have a list of the tribes that were signatories on this treaty and/or known of other similar treaties? New Perce?

Treaty With The Crow - 1868

Treaty With The Crow - 1868.

www.firstpeople.us

 

[BuzzH]

For those that have studied the issue, could Wyoming legally require Crows to purchase a non resident hunting liscense? How about follow season dates?
I understand that off reservation hunting rights were given, but does that make year round, night hunting, and no liscense ok?

What article, under the treaty, states they only get their hunting rights if they buy a Wyoming non-resident hunting license, what months they can hunt, or specify shooting hours?

Its not stipulated and as such, its very unlikely that any State licenses or regulations apply.

 

[antlerradar]

The hunting rights grated in the treaty are not like water rights. When land that has a water right is sold the water right is transferred with the land and is attached to the deed . This is not the case with the hunting rights in the treaty. When the federal sold the land to homesteaders, Railroad, the State ext. the hunting right was voided. The hunting right in the treaty is more like federal government giving permission than granting a right.


A few year back the Custer Forest came to my family rather sheepishly. This is how the conservation went. Custer forest, You know that main access road that goes through your property and that we want to fix up, We don't have an easement through your property. My family, oh, Well the road needs to be fixed and we are not going to block access, What do you need. Custer Forest, We need a right away. So we negotiated a right away giving the public access through our land. That right away is attached to that land and is never going away even if I were to sell the property.

Bottom line is Rights don't go away if you sell the property, permission does and can be revoked at any time.

 

[3855WIN]

What article, under the treaty, states they only get their hunting rights if they buy a Wyoming non-resident hunting license, what months they can hunt, or specify shooting hours?

Its not stipulated and as such, its very unlikely that any State licenses or regulations apply.

Hell, Buzz, they tell me what hours and days I can hunt on my own land. Sure seems like a State could also have rules for land a group has rights to hunt. It wouldn’t take the right to hunt away, just give it some structure.

 

[MTGomer]

Couple questions, what would those rights into perpetuity be worth, and where would the Government come up with that kind of money?

The Crow’s water rights were worth around $450 million dollars. I don’t know where the money came from when they were paid it. I suppose the government printed it out of thin air and borrowed it like they do for everything. Water volume can be calculated and it’s worth estimated. How to set value on game would be much harder.

Agreed, They would be crazy to sell their hunting rights or exchange them for anything if it is even possible for them to do so.
Because like with the water settlement, payment would come with a bunch of stipulations that leaves a bunch of obligations on the backs of the tribes that they conveniently need a bunch of white guys trying to make a name for themselves to climb in an agency from billings to Denver to DC in charge of micromanaging them. Or ‘upholding their trust obligation’ in bureaucrat lingo.

They’d probably end up having to spend a bunch of the money they were owed by the federal government to hire staff and consultants to help them navigate the murky framework of the thousands of obscure laws and hundreds of thousands of pages of regulations they’ll have to adhere to, to utilize their funds as stipulated, in effect turning a bunch of that money right back over.
Like the Crow, the Rocky Boy, Fort Peck, Mandan-Hidatsa-Arikara, Standing rock Sioux, Cheyenne River Sioux have.
This is how payments to tribes for what they rightfully own are handled, in my thinly veiled racist experience.

 

[Big Fin]

I normally would lock this thread, given the last few pages of posts, but the topic is too relevant and worthwhile to lock it, pending the ability of folks to not run it into the ditch over their personal delivery styles.

Interesting to read some of the comments about how times have changed and so should the treaties. Or that because it was the late 1800's when these treaties were signed that they are no longer valid. Or that the precedents of treaty law should be disregarded. Or ..........

I share the same frustration many here have. I share the same worry of what unhindered tribal hunting could do to wildlife. I've lived near a reservation and have many tribal friends. So much of what has been stated here is true. The problems are immense and I doubt for a second any of us commenting here who have seen life on a reservation would say, "Dang, I wish I could have been so lucky as to grow up in that environment."

All that said, I wonder what the response would be if someone said, "Those land grants of the 18th and 19th Century are BS. Those landowners of today need to give that land back to the entity that did the original grant. They are not using it the way it was intended 200 years ago."

Or, "All those lands that ended up in the hands of railroad, mining, and timber companies need to be returned to the US Government. They were not granted so people/companies could use them to block access like they do today."

Or, "Water rights are BS. There should be no water rights. That chit was just a bunch of crooks in the 1800's who were lining their own pockets."

Or, "The Mining Act of 1872 is almost 150 years old. Eff that and everyone who has benefited from it. It needs to change and if it affects you, deal with it."

Or, "The Homestead Act was a welfare give away program. We need all those currently holding rights in homestead lands to give those up. It wasn't my current elected official that passed those laws, so I'm not going to recognize rights anyone holds that have any origin in the Homestead Acts."

Or....... (insert 1800-era law that we live with today)

Yeah, those are all examples of laws and rules made at the same time many treaties were signed. Imagine if we approached folks who benefited from those examples above or are currently in situations that can trace some history back to those laws and we asked them to renegotiate their current situation. Ain't happening.

It is an equal waste of time and energy for one to expect treaties and rights conveyed under those treaties should be changed. Just like a suggestion to change those laws above, I can assure you it ain't happening.


All of those examples I provided above are irrelevant to the discussion of Court interpretation of tribal hunting rights under treaties. Just like many of the other tangents provided herein are irrelevant to the core of this issue - Court interpretation of tribal hunting rights conveyed by treaties.

This case deals with the results of treaties signed by people who we did not elect, just like the Homestead Acts, the Mining Act, and water right adjudication. We didn't elect those people who signed those laws and those century-old laws have huge impacts on our daily lives today. Everyone of those laws, and the rights conveyed by those laws, are completely different today than what was envisioned 100+ years ago; same as rights under treaties that were negotiated, signed, and ratified back in the same period.

I sure wouldn't call for, and I don't see anyone here calling for, nullification of everything that happened as a result of those old pieces of legislation I mention as examples. Yet, some seem to be commenting that it would be OK to nullify or change the treaties that have a lot of the same history as the examples I provided above.

Yeah, the tribes were under duress. But in many ways the settlers, their elected officials (many corrupt), and the barons of the times were under duress. Maybe even more duress.

In addition to pissed off tribes killing settlers for trespassing against prior treaties, the industry giants knew there was gold to mine and timber to cut. The railroad men saw huge fortunes in being able to lay new tracks cross tribal lands. For the new wave of farmers and ranchers looking for free and productive lands, there was water to divert, prairie to plow, and grass to be grazed. The nuisance bison needed to be annihilated to starve out the tribes and be converted to currency for the bison marketers, and the sooner the better.

Those groups wanted the US Government to do something and do it fast, no matter what it took. And what it took were treaties, the treaties we deal with today. Two sides, under duress, each having different objectives and intentions, agreed to a deal. Congress gave the power and authority to negotiate the deals (treaties). Deals struck under pressure are usually not the deals that have a long-term perspective, yet are deals nonetheless.

By all accounts, even considering the current issue of tribal hunting rights, most would agree that one side got a hell of a deal and other side .... well, not so much.

Point of bringing all that up is to illustrate that we can observe the difficult way of life that currently exists on reservations. We can opine as to how it should be changed. We can talk about what the causes are. We can (insert observation here)....... And even if we have answers to that, none of it changes how the Courts view the tribal rights under treaties.

I ask that we focus on the points that have some validity to the topic - Court interpretation of tribal hunting rights conveyed by the treaties signed and ratified over a century ago.

This is a worthwhile discussion to have. How the Courts view tribal hunting rights under treaties, how that affects hunting and conservation today, and what the path ahead looks like for state wildlife agencies who are charged with administering wildlife rules within the sideboards established by the US Supreme Court is something worth talking about.

All the rest of the BS that seems to be evolving on this thread is of no value to that discussion. So please, keep that BS out of it.

Here's to hoping I won't have to lock this thread. I am an eternal optimist, proven by the fact I keep sending volumes of money in anticipation of drawing a sheep tag.

 

[AvidIndoorsman]

Milestone Documents | National Archives

www.ourdocuments.gov

Yeah the Sioux treaty seems easier to deal with since the buffalo are gone.

Given the exact wording;


It seems strange to me, not a lawyer, that WY didn’t argue that the crow have the right to hunt WY already, no R or NR is bared from hunting the state, and that the treaty does not specifically say without restrictions. I wonder if there are previous cases that establish that the right to hunt means, without restrictions. Seems like if speech, arms, etc can be restricted in certain instances that restricting hunting should be allowed as well.

Also seems like an unintended, and terrible, solution given by the treaty would be for some Bundy-esk individuals to start up a conflict on the border of the Rez that breaks the peace.