U.S. supreme Court case - Big decision ahead

[Deleted member 28227]

I have the RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS, yet I can't own a machine gun or sawed off shotgun freely.

I have FREEDOM to assemble, yet I need a permit to do so.

Buzz I can go on for days with the "rights" I have that have been tweaked or regulated.
Also. CROW of 1868 were most likely 100% CROW( I know nothing is 100%). So, the definition of CROW 1868. Not 2019. Is Herrera a CROW name? Seems very Latin to me.

Again. Why did history get to start in 1868? Who did the CROW capture that land from? What is the geographical location of CROW land? How were boundaries set?

Again. My great.......grandpa rolled into Utah with Brigham. Years later the Federal government sent an army against United States citizens(Johnson army). My great..... grandmother was forced off her farm when Utah petitioned statehood and polygamy was outlawed. Where is my farm?

My backyard neighbors family was pulled off their land and sent to topaz for WWII. Where is his farm?

It's assinine to start history in 1868. It's more so to take such vagueness as "unoccupied land" or "hunting rights" and apply it to 2019. Or, does the Mormons who rolled into Utah now own it outright? After all, the Utah territory (including some of Wyoming) was just that, "our land".

It's a word game. If the courts find that 1868 "hunting rights" apply, then 1868 methods should as well. As soon as Herrera loaded up the 20xx truck, shooting 20xx guns, and 20xx bullets (to poach by the way, let's not forget this was wanton waste to begin with), he acknowledged his heritage no longer applied.

Further, sure water rights should apply. However you do not own the right to pollute your water. Hunting rights and when wanton waste begins. After all we've heard all the tales of how natives use everything in harmony with nature, let's not forget where this began. A damn fine Wyoming LE doing a fine job tracking down POACHERS.

I own all the property in my name. I am not allowed to pollute it. Rights have restrictions in a society.

Mormons, were never a recognized foreign power... so that comparison is kinda moot.

The Crow were a nation at war with the US and signed a peace treaty, at the time they were not US citizens, young was a US citizen. Actually at the time your relative moved to Utah it was part of Mexico, and was ceded to the US as part of Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, I guess if we want to just toss all the treaties out the window you can I can consider ourselves Mexicans.

In the global context 1868 really isn't that old, Anglo-Portuguese Treaty of 1373 is still in force and effect today. You need to separate Herrera and his actions from the legal conversation of the Crow Tribe v. the State of Wyoming. The Crow tribe is a semi-autonomous entity within the United States... it's just different.

 

[hossblur]

Citing a specific treaty right is in no way similar to vague “ancestorial references”. And SCOTUS painted with a very small brush in this (and most) case(s). Basis several of your comments on this thread I think you many need to update your civics class.

Define CROW land. Longitude and latitude.

Property in law has specific boundaries, with specific owners.

That is the issue. There are no specifics. No markable boundaries. No definition of "occupied" land. No definition of hunting(dynamite and poison on?).

This case wasn't about setting clear definitions. It was a guy getting pinched for wanton waste. The Supreme Court should never have taken the case to begin with, which they proved by demanding to the state for definitions.

My irritation isn't with the CROW. It's with the court. They don't have to take every case before it. Wildlife not on ESA, or buffalo in Yellowstone are the property of Wyoming.

Wyoming should have no beef with the tribe hunting. It's the killing that was and is the issue.

Hunting has a definition.

This case was gobilty gook to start with, SCOTUS accomplished nothing.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

Write your Congressional delegates and ask them to look into it. I just hope you use more educated arguments than you are here.

 

[3855WIN]

Yes, they would be allowed to hunt a Wilderness area, its unoccupied NF. The Wilderness Guide Law is a State Hunting regulation. State hunting regulations do not apply to the Crow Tribe.

Why do hunting rights also mean the Crow Tribe is above the law? I’ve leased rights to hunt as well as owned land that I’ve hunted on. At no time did this allow me to use illegal tactics or hunt out of a set season.
No problem with the tribe having hunting rights. No seasons no laws? Big problem.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

Why do hunting rights also mean the Crow Tribe is above the law? I’ve leased rights to hunt as well as owned land that I’ve hunted on. At no time did this allow me to use illegal tactics or hunt out of a set season.
No problem with the tribe having hunting rights. No seasons no laws? Big problem.

The treaty made no mention of “within the confines of state law”.

 

[idahohuntr]

Folks - the key to many of these arguments is the Crow have a TREATY with the US Gov't and they explicitly reserved certain rights. In so doing, they are in many ways not subject to any state regulations any more than the state is beholden to Crow Tribe regulations. It is also important to know that US Courts interpret treaties as the Tribes would have understood them - and when there are gray areas, the treaties are interpreted in favor of Tribes in acknowledgement that treaties were often negotiated in a language foreign to Tribes. The rights Tribal members have are not born out of their skin color, religion, race, etc...it comes from their TREATY. Article 6 of the US Constitution...Treaties are the supreme law of the land.

 

[MTGomer]

Define CROW land. Longitude and latitude.

Property in law has specific boundaries, with specific owners.

That is the issue. There are no specifics. No markable boundaries. No definition of "occupied" land.

Historical Crow territory was most of the Yellowstone River basin.
In more relatively recent times they were mostly in the western part of their historical territory due to the powerful Sioux and Cheyenne. Think of the Little BigHorn battle. The Crow assisted Custer against these tribes in what is now modern day Crow Agency.

There are several sort of undefined bands of Crow known as ‘River Crow’ and ‘Mountain Crow’ to this day.

It would be hard to define exact historical traditional boundaries especially since they were fluid through time.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

That is the issue. There are no specifics. No markable boundaries. No definition of "occupied" land. No definition of hunting(dynamite and poison on?).

"The Indians herein named agree, when the agency to be pertnanent home of the In- house and other buildings shall be constructed on the reservation named, they will make said reservation their permanent home, and they mill make no permanent settlement elsewhere, but they shall have the right to hunt on the unoccupied lands of the United States so long as game may be found thereon, and as long as peace subsists among the whites and Indians on the borders of the hunting districts.

Treaty was made 22 years before WY was admitted as a state, there are boundaries... unoccupied lands of the United States... via the ruling the Crow should be able to hunt all federal lands in California, Minnesota, Oregon, Kansas, Nevada, Colorado, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Washington, Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Arizona. Possibly Alaska, although that land was owned by Russia at the time of the treaty so it may not be included.

 

[BuzzH]

They might not be keen on it, but they don’t have a lot of leverage either. Maintaining trophy quality isn’t considered a conservation issue with respect to treaty right hunting.

I don’t know the answer. It’s a gamble for sure. Do you give away a little extra as a way of preventing potential disaster down the road, or do you stick to your guns and hope for the best? If I were Wyoming, I’d look long and hard at the NW tribal issues before making a decision.

I agree, Wyoming should have looked at this one a whole lot closer from the get-go.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Historical Crow territory was most of the Yellowstone River basin.
In more relatively recent times they were mostly in the western part of their historical territory due to the powerful Sioux and Cheyenne. Think of the Little BigHorn battle. The Crow assisted Custer against these tribes in what is now modern day Crow Agency.

There are several sort of undefined bands of Crow known as ‘River Crow’ and ‘Mountain Crow’ to this day.

It would be hard to define exact historical traditional boundaries especially since they were fluid through time.

Also irrelevant to this conversation as the treaty does not specify traditional hunting ground/territory/etc... I think you could probably argue they could hunt in the everglades.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

"The Indians herein named agree, when the agency to be pertnanent home of the In- house and other buildings shall be constructed on the reservation named, they will make said reservation their permanent home, and they mill make no permanent settlement elsewhere, but they shall have the right to hunt on the unoccupied lands of the United States so long as game may be found thereon, and as long as peace subsists among the whites and Indians on the borders of the hunting districts.

Treaty was made 22 years before WY was admitted as a state, there are boundaries... unoccupied lands of the United States... via the ruling the Crow should be able to hunt all federal lands in California, Minnesota, Oregon, Kansas, Nevada, Colorado, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Washington, Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Arizona. Possibly Alaska, although that land was owned by Russia at the time of the treaty so it may not be included.

Yes and no. Usual and accustomed places of doing so is a factor that has not yet played into Wyoming's situation, as there is still much to be decided. The Crow tribe would not likely be able to start hunting bighorn sheep in an area they never hunted as a nomadic subsistence tribe prior to the treaty, because courts have established the limitation of usual and accustomed hunting, fishing, gathering grounds.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

Folks - the key to many of these arguments is the Crow have a TREATY with the US Gov't and they explicitly reserved certain rights. In so doing, they are in many ways not subject to any state regulations any more than the state is beholden to Crow Tribe regulations. It is also important to know that US Courts interpret treaties as the Tribes would have understood them - and when there are gray areas, the treaties are interpreted in favor of Tribes in acknowledgement that treaties were often negotiated in a language foreign to Tribes. The rights Tribal members have are not born out of their skin color, religion, race, etc...it comes from their TREATY. Article 6 of the US Constitution...Treaties are the supreme law of the land.

This.

And fully expect any attempts at prosecution to lean in favor of the tribes.

 

[Handlebar]

The right to hunt by the Crow is enshrined in the treaty. That should be honored whether you/we like it or not.

It is not hard to foresee that this could balloon into some serious conservation issues. The operative word is hunt, if what is happening is wanton waste and strictly trophy taking then it is not hunting and I think that could be addressed at the state level as the court rightfully pointed out. It is this wanton disregard of ethics that bothers me most.
Also Pointing out that the Crow tribe does not mange the resources on the reservation well is not racist. Pointing out that wanton waste, the disaster that is the reservation system, the utter incompetence of the BIA and Tribal government is not racist nor is the persons who pointed that out.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

I agree, Wyoming should have looked at this one a whole lot closer from the get-go.

It's a no win situation. If they didn't fight this, they set the precedent of allowing Crow harvest in the Big Horns. Look at the responses in this thread. ANY capitulation, real or perceived, brings out the pitchforks and torches. I don't really blame them for fighting it, but now they need to step back and re-assess the situation.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Define CROW land. Longitude and latitude.

Property in law has specific boundaries, with specific owners.

That is the issue. There are no specifics. No markable boundaries. No definition of "occupied" land. No definition of hunting(dynamite and poison on?).

This case wasn't about setting clear definitions. It was a guy getting pinched for wanton waste. The Supreme Court should never have taken the case to begin with, which they proved by demanding to the state for definitions.

My irritation isn't with the CROW. It's with the court. They don't have to take every case before it. Wildlife not on ESA, or buffalo in Yellowstone are the property of Wyoming.

Wyoming should have no beef with the tribe hunting. It's the killing that was and is the issue.

Hunting has a definition.

This case was gobilty gook to start with, SCOTUS accomplished nothing.

Arguments so off base and lacking legal relevance I am passing on this one.

 

[hossblur]

Historical Crow territory was most of the Yellowstone River basin.
In more relatively recent times they were mostly in the western part of their historical territory due to the powerful Sioux and Cheyenne. Think of the Little BigHorn battle. The Crow assisted Custer against these tribes in what is now modern day Crow Agency.

There are several sort of undefined bands of Crow known as ‘River Crow’ and ‘Mountain Crow’ to this day.

It would be hard to define exact historical traditional boundaries especially since they were fluid through time.

Most? Some? Fluid? Numerous bands?

So we are going to apply English law, more specific land with actual boundaries, to tribal occupancy, then do so in 2019.

I know Sioux have buffalo hunting rights. Are we to believe that if they show genetic markers of plains buffalo existing in Henry's herds or Antelope Island Herds that they now have rights to those?

That is the issue here. 22years later Wyoming became OCCUPIED. Complete with definable boundaries. The treaty does NOT SAY "hunting rights regardless of boundaries, occupancy, forever"

That pesky little "occupied" word was put there for a REASON. The court, in sticking their nose AGAIN in wildlife management overreacted AGAIN.

It's amusing that Buzz and Fin(whom I both respect, even though I'm right and they are wrong) will stand on there heads about the feds(courts) getting involved in predator management, yet somehow this is acceptable.

Wyoming holds Wildlife in trust FOR THEIR RESIDENTS. There isn't an asterisk for sovereign nations, or nonresident. KILLING elk in 2019 IS 100% under the control of Wyoming, and to be honest, has been since WYOMING BECAME AN OCCUPIED STATE, or at least since Wyoming set up hunting, which DEFINED what hunting is, how it's to be done, what the season's and bags are. The a Crow can hunt, but unless they have a written explanation of what that means, then it should be subject to 2019 definitions.

 

[Irrelevant]

The way I read the SCOTUS decision it doesn't actually rule out the idea that the Crow may actually have to abide by some of the WY regulations for the sake of "Conservation". I hope so, as that would be a good compromise adjusting for the realities of wildlife and conservation today.

Based on the WY press release they will continue to seek some level of regulation based on Conservation, at a lower level court.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Most? Some? Fluid? Numerous bands?

So we are going to apply English law, more specific land with actual boundaries, to tribal occupancy, then do so in 2019.

I know Sioux have buffalo hunting rights. Are we to believe that if they show genetic markers of plains buffalo existing in Henry's herds or Antelope Island Herds that they now have rights to those?

That is the issue here. 22years later Wyoming became OCCUPIED. Complete with definable boundaries. The treaty does NOT SAY "hunting rights regardless of boundaries, occupancy, forever"

That pesky little "occupied" word was put there for a REASON. The court, in sticking their nose AGAIN in wildlife management overreacted AGAIN.

It's amusing that Buzz and Fin(whom I both respect, even though I'm right and they are wrong) will stand on there heads about the feds(courts) getting involved in predator management, yet somehow this is acceptable.

Wyoming holds Wildlife in trust FOR THEIR RESIDENTS. There isn't an asterisk for sovereign nations, or nonresident. KILLING elk in 2019 IS 100% under the control of Wyoming, and to be honest, has been since WYOMING BECAME AN OCCUPIED STATE, or at least since Wyoming set up hunting, which DEFINED what hunting is, how it's to be done, what the season's and bags are. The a Crow can hunt, but unless they have a written explanation of what that means, then it should be subject to 2019 definitions.

Did you even read the ruling? - statehood did not legally result in “occupied” status. Plain English. Even the dissenting justices didn’t care about this line of reasoning (they were worked up about issue estoppel/preclusion). And if you read your history, “occupied” was likely their to limit contact/conflict between settlers and natives.

That is the one public lands silver lining in this case. There is no evidence that any of the 9 justices is excited about implicit rights doled out at time of statehood. UT delegation probably not happy with the implicit signals that sends to the “no federal lands” angle.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

@hossblur You are way off base here. Temper your emotions and personal feelings and take Dr. Spock approach to the courts and tribal treaties.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Yes and no. Usual and accustomed places of doing so is a factor that has not yet played into Wyoming's situation, as there is still much to be decided. The Crow tribe would not likely be able to start hunting bighorn sheep in an area they never hunted as a nomadic subsistence tribe prior to the treaty, because courts have established the limitation of usual and accustomed hunting, fishing, gathering grounds.

Do you know what tribes were involved with that ruling, tribes like the Kwakiutl, Haida, or Tlingit had a very different culture and were much more sedentary than the Crow... depending on what time period your taking you could include land as far as possibly Wisconsin as traditional range for the Crow.