U.S. supreme Court case - Big decision ahead

[VikingsGuy]

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.

I am no expert on the Mille Lacs issue in MN, but I am confident saying SCOTUS’ logic pushes the state and tribe to reach some shared accommodations, but it absolutely will not require the tribe to accept the state’s preferred approaches to conservation. SCOTUS connected this treaty to its Mille Lacs legal framework, so if you want crystal ball into what WY can hope to accomplish, spend some time reading up on the Mille Lacs Lake fishery mess here in MN.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

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.

The tribes I'm recently familiar with are Nez Perce, Yakama, Muckleshoot, etc, and prior to that Crow, Northern Cheyenne, Blackfoot. Yes, you are correct in the importance of the culture. That's why Nez Perce are allowed to hunt near Gardiner, even though their reservation is hundreds of miles away. However, it would be disingenuous for the Crows to claim they hunted several states away when it was historically know there were other tribes around who routinely kicked their ass. There was a good reason they didn't historically hunt the Wind River Basin. As such, they'd have a very difficult time asserting treaty rights to hunt there.

 

[AvidIndoorsman]

Wyoming holds Wildlife in trust FOR THEIR RESIDENTS.

A concepts that wasn't developed until McCready V. Virginia in 1876 and Geer v. Connecticut 1896... well after this treaty was written. The tribe had an agreement with the federal government before the state of WY existed.

 

[AvidIndoorsman]

However, it would be disingenuous for the Crows to claim they hunted several states away when it was historically know there were other tribes around who routinely kicked their ass. There was a good reason they didn't historically hunt the Wind River Basin. As such, they'd have a very difficult time asserting treaty rights to hunt there.

Fair point.

 

[3855WIN]

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

If the State Of Wyoming means nothing, it’s time to void the treaty. Game laws were enacted so that we would have some game left to hunt. Leaving game to rot in the field is not a “right”. It’s a wrong. And should be treated as such.

 

[Sytes]

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.

Always like to read beyond what is shared and have appreciated your posts. Thanks for your post nature. For sake of others and of your mention regarding Article 6.

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlevi

 

[Deleted member 20812]

If the State Of Wyoming means nothing, it’s time to void the treaty. Game laws were enacted so that we would have some game left to hunt. Leaving game to rot in the field is not a “right”. It’s a wrong. And should be treated as such.

Game laws enacted by the state are intended for citizens of the state. Game laws enacted by the tribe(s) are intended for tribal members. They are different. Leave out your perception of right or wrong here. It's no different than you as a citizen of one state trying to assert laws (or lack thereof) in a neighboring state/country are wrong. It's not your decision.

 

[VikingsGuy]

If the State Of Wyoming means nothing, it’s time to void the treaty. Game laws were enacted so that we would have some game left to hunt. Leaving game to rot in the field is not a “right”. It’s a wrong. And should be treated as such.

And if you can get 218 congresional representatives, 60 senators and 1 president to agree it will be so. But I wouldn’t hold my breath.

 

[3855WIN]

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

I agree. But you have to love Wyoming for standing up for themselves. The feds rule that Wyoming has no say with wolves, grizzlies, and foreign nations. Crazy.

 

[AvidIndoorsman]

And if you can get 218 congresional representatives, 60 senators and 1 president to agree it will be so. But I wouldn’t hold my breath.

Also what would voiding it even mean... are we at War with the Crow Tribe... a group of US Citizens, do they get their original lands back lol

 

[AvidIndoorsman]

I agree. But you have to love Wyoming for standing up for themselves. The feds rule that Wyoming has no say with wolves, grizzlies, and foreign nations. Crazy.

Yep... and I get where your coming from and they should continue to litigate the issue using other arguments.

But also... do you really want Florida to be able declare war on Cuba, cause they literally would... tomorrow.

 

[VikingsGuy]

I agree. But you have to love Wyoming for standing up for themselves. The feds rule that Wyoming has no say with wolves, grizzlies, and foreign nations. Crazy.

Why is it crazy? I believe that Wyoming specifically petitioned to become a state at least twice and apparently was very happy to join the United States under the supreme law of the land (which is and has been the federal constitution, federal laws and treaties) when congress finally agreed. Just because you don’t like a given law here or there (apparently at least including the endangered species act and various Indian treaties, but I would guess you have more) doesn’t change that fact that WY doesn’t get complete autonomy as part of this union. If Carbon County decided it wanted to have unlimited antelope hunting do they get to tell the state F&G to bugger off? I think not.

 

[hossblur]

And as usual this is where it goes to the weeds.

Hunting has a definition. Meaning to pursue with the intent to kill

Wanton waste also has a definition. Meaning to leave or waste an animal.

Herrera wasn't investigated for killing elk and feeding his family. He was cited to leaving them to rot, as we saw on Monster Muleys.

Like I said gobbily gook. Unless there is some WRITTEN tribal definition of hunting that includes leaving elk to rot while cutting off the heads and posting on the interweb.

The tribes are subject to laws such as DUI(there were no cars in 1868).

This was a poaching case. Not a subsistence case. Or a boundary dispute.

As such, it is 100% Wyomings duty to enforce. The court has no business here. The treaty DOES NOT define hunting.

BTW, the biggest reason FS land isn't occupied is because it is FS. There was no FS, BLM, or State or SITLA in 1868. The signees in 1868 WERE NOT in that land seeking to preserve it, they were there to expand settlements into it....OCCUPY IT. There was no way they could perceive the ideas of Manifest Destiny or Homesteading would be stopped decades later. Interpreting "unoccupied" through a sense of 2019 and protected lands is asinine.

No one who signed that in the US thought 150 yrs later it would be protected land.

Or. If you want to use 2019 "occupied", then you should use 2019 "hunting". The tribes should not get to claim it both ways.

 

[Irrelevant]

As with many of the issues in our time, in our society, and Country, we are more interested in lawful than right. So be it. I will point out that to some degree the NW tribes have tempered their fishing rights to account for the significant depleted socks, and theoretically aren't killing ESA listed fish. So maybe there's some hope that extreme actions by tribal members won't occur. But in reading those the actual testimony of the court proceeding (lowest level), it sounded like this part of WY was already getting hammered pretty hard. On a bright note, Unit 38 might get easier to draw in the future.

 

[VikingsGuy]

And as usual this is where it goes to the weeds.

Hunting has a definition. Meaning to pursue with the intent to kill

Wanton waste also has a definition. Meaning to leave or waste an animal.

Herrera wasn't investigated for killing elk and feeding his family. He was cited to leaving them to rot, as we saw on Monster Muleys.

Like I said gobbily gook. Unless there is some WRITTEN tribal definition of hunting that includes leaving elk to rot while cutting off the heads and posting on the interweb.

The tribes are subject to laws such as DUI(there were no cars in 1868).

This was a poaching case. Not a subsistence case. Or a boundary dispute.

As such, it is 100% Wyomings duty to enforce. The court has no business here. The treaty DOES NOT define hunting.

BTW, the biggest reason FS land isn't occupied is because it is FS. There was no FS, BLM, or State or SITLA in 1868. The signees in 1868 WERE NOT in that land seeking to preserve it, they were there to expand settlements into it....OCCUPY IT. There was no way they could perceive the ideas of Manifest Destiny or Homesteading would be stopped decades later. Interpreting "unoccupied" through a sense of 2019 and protected lands is asinine.

No one who signed that in the US thought 150 yrs later it would be protected land.

Or. If you want to use 2019 "occupied", then you should use 2019 "hunting". The tribes should not get to claim it both ways.

There is absolutely no body of law that requires explicit definitions to contract’s or treaty’s terms. Some have them, some don’t. Even when they do, folks still litigate. You (or the later formed state of WY don’t get to define them for this treaty. And again, did you even read this and the related Indian cases? Plenty of SCOTUS direction on what various terms mean - and they aren’t yours.

And I am pretty sure the railroads, an eastern voting block disgusted with news from the Indian wars, and a underfunded war department all would have been happy to accept your 2019 moral frustration as a price to facilitate their 1880’s needs.

Why is it so prevalent in the rural prairie/mountain west (I come from ND so I have a basis for this) for folks to have extremely strong beliefs in how the law works that have no actual basis in the law. Almost any disagreement with government in ND results is some half-cocked but vigrously defended jail-house legal rationale. I just haven’t see that often outside of these regions very often.

 

[LuketheDog]

But also... do you really want Florida to be able declare war on Cuba, cause they literally would... tomorrow.

YES, that would be a heck of a show!

 

[BuzzH]

I agree. But you have to love Wyoming for standing up for themselves. The feds rule that Wyoming has no say with wolves, grizzlies, and foreign nations. Crazy.

That's debatable for sure.

I wasn't real cracked up with them making their stand on the wolf issue and delaying State wolf management for a bunch of years.

I'm also not sure they made the correct decision to fight this one to the SC level either.

 

[AvidIndoorsman]

I wasn't real cracked up with them making their stand on the wolf issue and delaying State wolf management for a bunch of years.

Yeah they really had a soft touch coming out of the gate on both bears and wolves.

 

[HSi-ESi]

I thought I would try to start to put some facts and some history into this discussion. While I am no historian, I did grow up on the Crow Res and as such I feel some obligation to try and at least insert some background information into this thread.

I'll start here - while there are parallels with other tribes - and the SCOTUS does use previous court decisions to support their current decision - each tribe is it's own entity. This makes any correlations or hypothetical arguments very much moot and really muddies the water. I would encourage folks posting on this thread to really just focus on this one court decision.

I thought it would be useful to show first the historical boundaries of the Crow Reservation (image from LBHC for credit).



The original Crow Agency was east of Livingston, then moved south of Absarokee, then to present day Crow Agency. As you can see, the reservation boundary changed greatly over a 50 year span. I don't know the source of why the boundary moved at those certain times - maybe someone else on here has that knowledge.

I'll try to pitch into the thread - but I think we do have an opportunity to have a worthwhile discussion over this issue - if we can stay focused. We are trying to examine 1 small piece of a large treaty - and even a simple example like "I got a speeding ticket driving through a res once" has no bearing on the current issue and can quickly derail this thread (as we know).

 

[AvidIndoorsman]

That is a great graphic... speaks volumes about the current situation.