U.S. supreme Court case - Big decision ahead

[VikingsGuy]

we are more interested in lawful than right.

Emotionally I agree, but that breaks down quickly. For example, there are likely far more Americans who would say, “It is right to take 50% of a rich persons assets including real property in order house the homeless” than who will say, “it is right for Wyoming’s definition of moral hunting to be enforced on the Crow tribe”. Laws are meant to encode a subset of “right” we can agree should be enforced by the police power of government. It can’t possibly sweep in each person’s individual view of right, even if I happen to agree with them.

 

[hossblur]

Miss dry I gotta get back to work.

There were 2 parties that signed this treaty.

One was on the brink of being extinct. The other tired of Indian wars.

But let's not act stupid. The United States had every intention of OCCUPYING this land in 1868. That is precisely the reason they included the word OCCUPY in the treaty. The CROW knew it as well.

In 2019 preteding like Herrera was in a pristine, roadless area, on horseback with his flintlick, how, or lever action is preposterous.

The reason Wyoming was granted statehood was to define its OCCUPANCY of that land. There are actual definable property boundaries defining the OCCUPIED STATE of Wyoming.
The United States was not kicking the ass of, and systematically eliminating the natives with the idea of setting up Wyoming territory as a wilderness area. There were occupants, there are ooccupants. Otherwise how did the LE DRIVE to the reservation to meet with Herarra to begin with? Do we often find roads in land not occupied?

That treaty was an acknowledgement by both the CROW and the US that the land was soon to be occupied, but they could hunt it until then.

The fact a WYOMING G&F drove a truck across this land kinda shows it's occupied, or is the road illegal?.

Only a lawyer can see a state, occupied by hundreds of thousands, and try to pretend that doesn't mean occupied.

It is. Therefore the hunting of 1868 ended 22 Years later, and was replaced by what's there today.

Herrera poached, knew he was poaching.

Words have meanings. OCCUPIED LANDS was put there for a REASON. The CROW shouldn't have signed it if they didn't agree to it. Or do they get treated differently under the law?

Hope it quits snowing here thus weekend, i got fish to catch and beer to drink. Have a good weekend

 

[Deleted member 28227]

@hossblur Can't disagree with much there, definitely what WY was thinking... supreme court says you're wrong

Hope the fish are biting and the beer is cold

 

[hossblur]

@hossblur Can't disagree with much there, definitely what WY was thinking... supreme court says you're wrong

Hope the fish are biting and the beer is cold

I know I'm leaving.

No. The Supreme Court sent "occupied lands" back to Wyoming as I understand it.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Miss dry I gotta get back to work.

There were 2 parties that signed this treaty.

One was on the brink of being extinct. The other tired of Indian wars.

But let's not act stupid. The United States had every intention of OCCUPYING this land in 1868. That is precisely the reason they included the word OCCUPY in the treaty. The CROW knew it as well.

In 2019 preteding like Herrera was in a pristine, roadless area, on horseback with his flintlick, how, or lever action is preposterous.

The reason Wyoming was granted statehood was to define its OCCUPANCY of that land. There are actual definable property boundaries defining the OCCUPIED STATE of Wyoming.
The United States was not kicking the ass of, and systematically eliminating the natives with the idea of setting up Wyoming territory as a wilderness area. There were occupants, there are ooccupants. Otherwise how did the LE DRIVE to the reservation to meet with Herarra to begin with? Do we often find roads in land not occupied?

That treaty was an acknowledgement by both the CROW and the US that the land was soon to be occupied, but they could hunt it until then.

The fact a WYOMING G&F drove a truck across this land kinda shows it's occupied, or is the road illegal?.

Only a lawyer can see a state, occupied by hundreds of thousands, and try to pretend that doesn't mean occupied.

It is. Therefore the hunting of 1868 ended 22 Years later, and was replaced by what's there today.

Herrera poached, knew he was poaching.

Words have meanings. OCCUPIED LANDS was put there for a REASON. The CROW shouldn't have signed it if they didn't agree to it. Or do they get treated differently under the law?

Hope it quits snowing here thus weekend, i got fish to catch and beer to drink. Have a good weekend

Intent is not a legally relevant to question in the field of contracts/treaties. The first day of contract law they point out “meeting of the minds” is simply NOT the law - the law does not bother itself with what people thought they were agreeing to. It is what a “reasonable person” at the time of signature would understand the words to mean. And, it is mostly not from the government’s perspective as the courts have extended the concept of “construing against the drafter” very heavily when it comes to Indian treaties. The only legally relevant question about the definition of “occupied” is, “what would a reasonable Indian at the time of signing thought those words to mean”. That is the law. SCOTUS applied the law. All of your typing is how you personally view a treaty, I doubt you have read, applied through your self created legal analysis has no relation to the law or this particular SCOTUS ruling.

But to your most important point - I hope all HTer’s have great weather this weekend and can get outside and enjoy our blessed wild lands.

 

[BuzzH]

This isn't the end of the world if you look at the big picture.

Exactly. So the tribe kills a few elk, deer and pronghorn. Maybe I'll have to be happy "only" having 2 elk tags a year instead of 3, 5 pronghorn tags a year instead of 6, and something less than 6+ deer tags a year.

I'll make due.

 

[VikingsGuy]

I would encourage folks posting on this thread to really just focus on this one court decision.

I appreciate you contribution to a different angle of the discussion, but do disagree with this one point. If you want to have a sense of where this is going, dig into the Mille Lacs issue. It is the legal framework SCOTUS has made the law of the land, and while there are treaty by treaty differences, the Mille Lacs line of reasoning will guide the evaluation of those discussions.

For example, if we are wondering how much power WY has related to general “conservation” concerns - it is very instructive to see what the federal courts have done in MN under Mille Lacs - our legal system is built upon comparing and contrasting these precedents, to ignore them is to ignore our entire approach to legal analysis.

 

[antlerradar]

Cross that bridge if/when it happens...and I doubt it will. Wyoming will have to move through the court system again and make its case that there is a valid conservation concern. Hopefully they get better legal advice than from the brain-trust that decided this was a good one to pursue.

I think many need to start thinking logically and leave emotion out. How many registered Crow Members are there? Of those, how many hunt? Of that subset of those that hunt, how many are serious about it?

My guess, not that many.

I'm concerned with tribal moose hunting in the Bighorns...but not worried at all about tribal hunting in regard to elk, deer, pronghorn, grouse etc. I would also like to believe that the Tribe would take into consideration, that if they choose to over-harvest moose, there is going to be litigation if there is a conservation concern.

There is currently around 12,000 registered Crows.
I am not worried about the ones that hunt to feed themselves. The ones that worry me are the ones that will use this decision to expand their market hunting to the Custer and Bighorns and the ones that to paraphrase JLS use the decision to give the white man the bird. Lets just hope that those are few. Most of the members will take few if any animals but some will take dozens and maybe even hundreds.

 

[sdkhunter]

Frustrating that this whole situation was made to look like a starving family was going out on a subsistence hunt while most anyone that has looked at the details surrounding this whole mess saw it for the trophy poaching that it was... Now we have this SCOTUS ruling that doesn't give us closure like a lot of their rulings - while this specific case is over/decided - it just muddies the water more on the future of wildlife management in WY and elsewhere... Personally I think all these old agreements, treaties, etc should just be for the most part burnt to the ground and new agreements done based on current legal language and the status of boundaries, roads, etc etc can be incorporated... No wonder no one can agree - we are trying to determine what people "considered occupied or unoccupied land" 150 years ago - crap - people weren't even using electricity and were driving around horses... What a mess....

 

[El Jason]

At risk of falling to revisionist history, I offer this.

A worthwhile read....

I am by no means a tribal apologist, and when I was in my middle 20's I harbored many of the same attitudes as hossblur. However, life perspective and legal knowledge have brought me to a much different place. The tribes have shown the treaty was never fully honored in the first place, and land meant for them was unlawfully taken, but we should nullify the treaty? People are getting hung up on what is right or wrong in terms of a wasted elk carcass, yet conveniently overlook this little dishonest land re-appropriation? Sheesh.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Would be interesting to see some WY poaching stats... seems like even with this ruling the number of animals killed by tribe members off the rez will be dwarfed by the number of white poachers running around up there.

 

[El Jason]

There is currently around 12,000 registered Crows.
I am not worried about the ones that hunt to feed themselves. The ones that worry me are the ones that will use this decision to expand their market hunting to the Custer and Bighorns and the ones that to paraphrase JLS use the decision to give the white man the bird. Lets just hope that those are few. Most of the members will take few if any animals but some will take dozens and maybe even hundreds.

I can all but guarantee you the impact(s) will be largely limited to buck/bull populations. Tribal hunters by and large completely eschew the hunting of cows and does. I can also comfortably predict the hunting will be largely limited to road systems, as tribal hunters are really no different than the rest of us in this regard.

The market hunting is an interesting aspect. To some people, subsistence hunting = a drying rack full of meat, ready for winter. To others, subsistence hunting = selling wild game as a means of creating income.

 

[Irrelevant]

To others, subsistence hunting = selling wild game as a means of creating income.

This is the bigger issue here in WA with regard to salmon and seafood.

 

[BrentD]

The market hunting is an interesting aspect. To some people, subsistence hunting = a drying rack full of meat, ready for winter. To others, subsistence hunting = selling wild game as a means of creating income.

With fishing that has happened. Even for species that did not exist in the area in pre-Columbian times or even at the time of the treaties. In fact, at least for a while and maybe still today, they were allowed to catch and sell salmon from the Great Lakes that are not only not native but also too high in various toxins to be marketed by anyone else. I do not know if this is still true. But the interpretation of what is allowable might be very broad, or maybe not. Only more court cases will determine that.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

The market hunting is an interesting aspect. To some people, subsistence hunting = a drying rack full of meat, ready for winter. To others, subsistence hunting = selling wild game as a means of creating income.

But they couldn't sell elk meat?

 

[El Jason]

This is the bigger issue here in WA with regard to salmon and seafood.

Correct, and is repeatedly violated during ceremonial seasons (or equivalent) that come with the stipulation of no commercial sale.

 

[El Jason]

But they couldn't sell elk meat?

They very well might be allowed to.

Edit: It depends on whether the tribe outlaws it or not.

 

[BuzzH]

They very well might be allowed to.

I can think of about 7,000 easier ways to make money than selling elk meat...

 

[BrentD]

I can think of about 7,000 easier ways to make money than selling elk meat...

That definitely will not stop it from happening if it can.

Subsistence hunting is hardly the easiest way to make dinner.

 

[El Jason]

I can think of about 7,000 easier ways to make money than selling elk meat...

No disagreement here.