Use Promo Code Randy for 20% off OutdoorClass

U.S. supreme Court case - Big decision ahead

I ran into a situation in Montana in the 1990's with a tribal pronghorn hunt. I was hunting on private land, outside the Fort Belknap reservation on a friends private property. I ran into a tribal guide from the Fort Belknap reservation, outside the reservation boundary, but guiding/hunting a couple sections owned by the Fort Belknap reservation. The client wasn't wearing orange and was hunting under a tag issued by Fort Belknap.

I always wondered about the legality of that?
Sounds like they were guiding on off reservation tribal trust land, this is a difficult question of legality as these parcels are basically islands of tribal jurisdiction. States differ on how they approach this situation, usually local CO's know those lands well and deal with this scenario wisely. States typically look at these lands as on reservation hunting even though they contend tribal licensure authority does not exist for non-Indians outside of reservation borders.
 
Unoccupied has to be evaluated in terms of what the phrase unoccupied lands meant at the time the treaty was signed. An administrative occupation, such as a national forest, will not reach the threshold of constituting occupied lands.
 
And Yellowstone, Glacier, Grand Teton, Roosevelt National Parks are considered... Unoccupied? Or is there a "conservation" angle that voids the "unoccupied" portion? (Speaking outside reservation territory)
 
[
And Yellowstone, Glacier, Grand Teton, Roosevelt National Parks are considered... Unoccupied? Or is there a "conservation" angle that voids the "unoccupied" portion? (Speaking outside reservation territory)
Unoccupied will be viewed through the eyes of a Crow tribe member in the 1880s. Are there towns/settlements, are the active ranches and farms, etc? Things like BLM status, designation as a park or a wildness, a "forest" or a landmark etc will have no meaning in the determination of occupied.
 
Last edited:
Not my state, I do not know local knowledge. I would think National parks , BLM would be considered occupied as they are covered by park rangers and BLM. Would make a case in court. Do not like your chances, but a good lawyer!
 
Not my state, I do not know local knowledge. I would think National parks , BLM would be considered occupied as they are covered by park rangers and BLM. Would make a case in court. Do not like your chances, but a good lawyer!
There were transient people, trappers, hunters, marshalls, military scouts etc at the time - if that counted as occupied then there would have been no unoccupied even at treaty signing. This approach has zero chance.
 
So we're going with the 1880's definition of "unoccupied" but not the 1880's method of "hunting" (ie. horseback, bow and arrow)? This rational is a joke.
Hunting is a word that does not need further definition even today. How, when and where and why you hunt may vary, but the word hunt hasn’t changed much in the language, so the distinction is perfectly logical. Also Indians were already rifle hunting by the time of this treaty so not helpful there either.
 
[

Unoccupied will be viewed through the eyes of a Crow tribe member in the 1880s. Are there towns/settlements, are the active ranches and farms, etc? Things like BLM status, designation as a park or a wildness, a "forest" or a landmark etc will have no meaning in the determination of occupied.
Yellowstone Park was established in 1872 so it appears to have been occupied when the treaty was signed based on this line of reasoning.
 
Not my state, I do not know local knowledge. I would think National parks , BLM would be considered occupied as they are covered by park rangers and BLM. Would make a case in court. Do not like your chances, but a good lawyer!
National forests are patrolled by forest rangers as well...
 
Hunting is a word that does not need further definition even today. How, when and where and why you hunt may vary, but the word hunt hasn’t changed much in the language, so the distinction is perfectly logical. Also Indians were already rifle hunting by the time of this treaty so not helpful there either.
Hunting sure needs further definition. Does “hunting” include wanton waste? Or is that term not even relevant due to this treaty?

The waste of a game animal whether shot under a treaty or not should be a hard pill for EVERYONE to swallow.
 
Last edited:
Viking Guy, why so negative. Do you consider a National park visited by thousands as being occupied? I do.
Not negative, just a lawyer who is familiar with appellate court practice - and a casual watcher of how the Mille Lacs matter has gone for the last decade in MN. I doubt visitors will be relevant to the discussion - but I would guess some of the the built up areas of national parks may be "occupied" - like lodges at Yellowstone.
 
Hunting sure needs further definition. Does “hunting” include wanton waste? Or is that term not even relevant due to this treaty?

The waste of a game animal whether shot under a treaty or not should be a hard pill for EVERYONE to swallow.
Wanton waste occurs after hunting and is a separate concept. I don't like it either, but the legal framework here is not set to our 2019 sensibilities but to 1868 indian understandings.
 
Wanton waste occurs after hunting and is a separate concept. I don't like it either, but the legal framework here is not set to our 2019 sensibilities but to 1868 indian understandings.
You’re right, wouldn’t want to do that like we do for ALL other US citizens.
 
Wanton waste occurs after hunting and is a separate concept. I don't like it either, but the legal framework here is not set to our 2019 sensibilities but to 1868 indian understandings.

But by that logic couldn't you still charge someone with wonton waste, in spite of the treaty?
 
Gastro Gnome - Eat Better Wherever

Forum statistics

Threads
110,812
Messages
1,935,322
Members
34,888
Latest member
Jack the bear
Back
Top