VikingsGuy
Well-known member
The tribe could charge them. Or the tribe and the state could negotiate some similar framework.
U.S. supreme Court case - Big decision ahead
- Thread starter Big Fin
- Start date
The tribe could charge them. Or the tribe and the state could negotiate some similar framework.
BigHornRam
Well-known member
If the the lawyers in 1868 would have wrote a legible treaty, we wouldn't have to hire a hundred fold lawyers to sort this mess out today. Job security for lawyers I guess.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
We do what we can to ensure our continued siphoning of 4% of our nation's economy
Last edited:
antlerradar
Well-known member
The court is made up of nine highly educated people. As with all humans they can make mistakes and right some bad decisions. Some of the worst I can think of are when the Court allowed the other two branches of government to treat two groups of citizens differently.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
If you have a contract with the Federal government leasing some grazing land and I do not have such a contract - then you can graze your cattle and I cannot. We are thereby treated differently, is this a problem? Not by any legal analysis I have ever seen.
Many on this thread seem to forget there is a specific written agreement (treaty) between the Crow and the Fed Govt. - this is not an equal protections case.
antlerradar
Well-known member
Thanks for clearing that up. I understand where you are coming form. Not a perfect analogy. You may not have a grazing contract but there is nothing holding your back form getting one except money and common sense. Treating people differently based on blood lines is what I have a hard time with.
After reading the treaty again it seems there are some things that the tribe may not be that fond of. I wonder if WY will push them.
After reading the treaty again it seems there are some things that the tribe may not be that fond of. I wonder if WY will push them.
375H&H
Well-known member
Last I checked grazing agreements had rules and regulations that had to be followed, and those rules and regulations could change as technology and science updates for modern grazing practices.
This treaty has no rules or regulations pertaining to modern “hunting” and some seem to think that this treaty should not be updated even in the slightest to account for modern wanton waste or legal take aspects that all others have to follow (barring another treaty) and are stuck in 1868.
Although, even if there were rules applied to tribal hunting, do we really think the head game warden for the Crow would enforce them?
Last edited:
BigHornRam
Well-known member
Danny has a point here.We do what we can to ensure our continued siphoning of 4% of our nation's economy
Now I see why you are not such a fan of communism Vikingsguy.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
About the same odds as good ‘ole boy sheriff ticketing big local rancher for hunter harassment. Such is the nature of small town (res) politics.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
That’s the beauty of America, the communists and the fascists have lawyer too.Now I see why you are not such a fan of communism Vikingsguy.
Disagree (edit added: respectfully disagree
). The process is far less transparent and possess far greater internal success to conceal the corruption within.Rural, po-dunk Sheriff Roscoe Coltrane's are exposed in time. Far different world on tribal land.
Example:
https://missoulian.com/uncategorize...cle_636592af-a4b5-5740-aadf-c8436cc902b8.html
Also;
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
Disagree (edit added: respectfully disagree
Rural, po-dunk Sheriff Roscoe Coltrane's are exposed in time. Far different world on tribal land.
Example:
https://missoulian.com/uncategorize...cle_636592af-a4b5-5740-aadf-c8436cc902b8.html
Also;
I'm with vikingsguy... at this point there is nothing the tribe could do that holds a candle to what good ol'boys have gotten away with. Let's remember it took 30 years for Byron De La Beckwith to be convicted of killing Medgar Evers; during one of the trials the Governor walked into the court room while Evers widow was on the stand, and walked up to De La Beckwith and shook his hand.
Last edited by a moderator:
Last edited:
Vikings guy, does your read on the opin lead you to conclude that in order to apply the precedent established in Mille Lacs and upheld in Herrara that while statehood does not abrogate treaty hunting rights within lands identified for individual tribal treaties that each treaty must be tested to determine if and how each treaty maintains said treaty hunting right for various tribes?
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
In general that is a fair statement for any disputed contract or treaty. The court explicitly left open issues to be further litigated. The two most obvious being "occupied" and some ill described WY role in "conservation".
Regarding "occupied", general legal designation (e.g., a national park or a forest, etc.) or transient activities (e.g., lumber operations or mining) did not trigger wholesale "occupation". Further, "occupied" must be viewed in light of 1868 Indian understanding of the term which is essentially non-Indian settlements and residences. But for now they are leaving to the lower courts to figure the specific application of that definition to the specific locale in this case. They offered no guidance regarding a state conservation role, but the bar will be quite high to trigger that if the federal courts approach in Mille Lacs is to be repeated in WY.
thusby
Well-known member
You should be prepared for the fact that you could see no quota, no season and night hunting in your near future.
@VikingsGuy How does this work regarding the unoccupied area... In the sense, is it within their hunting range known in 1868? Or is this a national level of unoccupied?
The case was ordered back to the lower Courts to determine if conservation needs give Wyoming the right to regulate hunting by Crow tribal members...
What "lower Courts" does this refer to? Back to State and challenged to Federal, if Wyoming contends Crow, like any hunter, must comply with the State's F & G regulations, designed for the *intended purpose of "conservation needs"... Which applies to the qty of tags per unit, seasons, etc... (?)
I see this as a potential WY recovery... If I am reading this correctly. Just as there are Resident and Non Resident Tags, add, Native Tags to the pool of tags and the "conservation needs" of the state are maintained.
The case was ordered back to the lower Courts to determine if conservation needs give Wyoming the right to regulate hunting by Crow tribal members...
What "lower Courts" does this refer to? Back to State and challenged to Federal, if Wyoming contends Crow, like any hunter, must comply with the State's F & G regulations, designed for the *intended purpose of "conservation needs"... Which applies to the qty of tags per unit, seasons, etc... (?)
I see this as a potential WY recovery... If I am reading this correctly. Just as there are Resident and Non Resident Tags, add, Native Tags to the pool of tags and the "conservation needs" of the state are maintained.
Irrelevant
Well-known member
I would think even a fraction of the Wyoming regs would suffice as meeting a conservation need. Even if the tribe just said, any elk, Sept to Nov. That's at least something. I seriously doubt they'll actually go so far as to setup a draw/tag allocation system. They can barely fund their wildlife enforcement let alone take on more responsibilities.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
This is not an administrative proceeding to set the boundaries of the treaty lands, but rather a trial against Herrera. I think both sides accept that the specific grounds Herrera hunted at the time of the citation was land within the scope of the treaty. The lower court just needs to determine if those specific areas hunted by Herrera are or are not “occupied” (again, have sufficient settlement or residences, not just park/forest designation) under the treaty.
As for lower court, it will go all the way down to the WY state trial court.
As for conservation angle. I would not get my hopes up. The federal courts have given MN DNR very limited leverage in similar discussions with local tribes. Mere replication of existing rules for “native hunters” will not carry the day unless the Crows want that. Steps necessary to prevent of true decimation of animal populations will probably fly, but it will not allow for the kind of “management for desired herd age and trophy status” folks on HT will want. It is far more likely that the tribe will have broad latitude in seasons and harvest numbers and the state will have to ratchet down non-tribal hunting access to preserve base population (see, Mille Lacs matter). I am not saying I like this, just saying the tribe will get a great degree of latitude.
idahohuntr
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2013
- Messages
- 333
On the conservation angle...there is a fair amount of case law for Pacific Northwest Tribes as well that have touched on this issue...all of it in alignment with what vikingsguy notes above. If Wyoming thinks (as alluded to by their Governor's statement) that this is business as usual and they will use the "conservation" angle to simply apply state regs to Crow Tribe members...they are living in a fantasy world. This is why they need to get to the negotiating table and figure out co-management.
Similar threads
