U.S. supreme Court case - Big decision ahead

idahohuntr

Active member
Joined
Dec 19, 2013
Messages
108
Good point.

Even more amazing is the USFS LEO in charge of the federal property where this happened was not involved and instead threw the game warden and state of Wyoming under the bus.

I would really like to see the state force the USFS LEO's and lawyers to get involved with this as they are the landowner and they are they are from the same government that signed the treaty. Yet they pass the buck and expect the state to fight their fight and waste millions on something they signed.
You misread what I wrote. The United States absolutely got involved - they were on the side of Herrera. I believe in the oral arguments or briefings they not only argued statehood and forest designation did not terminate the treaty...they even flatly stated the Bighorn NF is not occupied land in terms of the treaty.
 

3855WIN

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 17, 2014
Messages
1,070
Location
Mississippi
IF Herrera hauled out the meat, I say more power to him. He found a loophole. I’d put him right there with corner jumpers and those who fly into isolated BLM tracts to hunt. He didn’t, and I’ll hold him in very low regard. Best of luck to the rest of the Crow hunters who are living the dream. I hope to see stories of ethically hunted elk that are feeding the Tribe.
 

HSi-ESi

Active member
Joined
Nov 1, 2012
Messages
913
Location
Corvallis, MT
IF Herrera hauled out the meat, I say more power to him. He found a loophole. I’d put him right there with corner jumpers and those who fly into isolated BLM tracts to hunt. He didn’t, and I’ll hold him in very low regard. Best of luck to the rest of the Crow hunters who are living the dream. I hope to see stories of ethically hunted elk that are feeding the Tribe.
There are many Crow tribal members who would pack out all the meat, and I would defend them vigorously- SCOTUS ruling aside. Herrera did not pack out all the meat, but the treaty rights allow the action.

I don't agree with the wanton-waste - but it is allowed under the treaty right. I think we can all agree that the waste of meat off any elk goes against our upbringing.

I would urge folks to look past this item and look at the bigger picture.
 

VikingsGuy

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 2, 2017
Messages
2,892
Location
Twin Cities
Not conflating a damn thing. Outlaws left the Rez to shoot horns out of season and let the meat rot. This is lawlessness. Normal people can see this. Apparently, lawyers cannot.
Are people who drive 80 mph on an interstate highway violating law? You can't answer that until I tell you what law applies. In MN we have interstate posted at 45, 55, 60, 65 & 70. But then in SD we get up to lawful 80 mph. You are not lawless if you are complying with the laws that apply to you at that moment and ignore the ones that don't. Herrera is not an outlaw by hunting at the time and location he did because the wyoming season did not apply to him.
 

hossblur

Active member
Joined
Feb 15, 2012
Messages
163
You are not really leasing hunting rights. You are leasing trespass rights for the purpose of hunting. The hunting, remains a state/fed controlled activity

So why can't Wyoming allow hunting, just not killing. They are 2 distinctly different things?
 

PrairieHunter

Well-known member
Joined
May 17, 2018
Messages
1,058
Location
Laramie, WY
You misread what I wrote. The United States absolutely got involved - they were on the side of Herrera. I believe in the oral arguments or briefings they not only argued statehood and forest designation did not terminate the treaty...they even flatly stated the Bighorn NF is not occupied land in terms of the treaty.
I didn't at all.
Exactly what you said happened. Which is BS since they should have been one ones taking care of the problem they created on their land instead of joining sides with the tribe versus the state of WY G&F.

I am saying they should have gotten involved to take care of the problem, not fight against the state.

How in the world the feds made a treaty with the Indians, then told the state to manage the wildlife on the same land, and then essentially supported the tribe taking the state to court. Makes zero sense.
 

3855WIN

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 17, 2014
Messages
1,070
Location
Mississippi
Are people who drive 80 mph on an interstate highway violating law? You can't answer that until I tell you what law applies. In MN we have interstate posted at 45, 55, 60, 65 & 70. But then in SD we get up to lawful 80 mph. You are not lawless if you are complying with the laws that apply to you at that moment and ignore the ones that don't. Herrera is not an outlaw by hunting at the time and location he did because the wyoming season did not apply to him.
Outlaws leave meat to rot.
 

hossblur

Active member
Joined
Feb 15, 2012
Messages
163
Occupied:

(of a place, especially a country) taken control of by military conquest or settlement.

"the occupied territories"

English apparently isn't taught in law school.

Nor is history. As in the same United States that days before was irradiating CROW, suddenly became so supportive of them as to give them rights to game FOREVER, the same game that fed their settlers and armies?

To belive any of that you first have to believe the CROW to be stupid(which I don't). So stupid they thought the same men killing them now wanted them to prosper.

Or that the United States idea for western expansion and manifest Destiny didn't include Wyoming Territory, including OCCUPYING IT.

The language clear. The context is clear. The history is clear.

Not surprising a room full of lawyers could screw it up.

After all these same lawyers found abortion the constitution. Made gun laws legal vs "Shall not be infringed", and found a way to circumvent private property rights in the Kelo decision.

After all I heard a lawyer once straight faced say " that depends on the meaning of is"

If we aren't going to enforce the language as written, and either ignore it, or redefine it, treaties are useless and can mean anything.

In 1868. OCCUPIED had a definite meaning. The men in uniforms signing it, WERE AN OCCUPYING FORCE.
 

Sytes

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Messages
5,958
Location
Montana
Query... Has the Crow Tribe found their former Game Warden in violation of their tribal conservation F&G laws, specifically 12-5-107, Wanton Waste? Curious the state of "law" the Crow Tribe holds upon it's tribal members that violate their laws... especially those whom are responsible to enforce said laws?
Second thought... no worries, the, at the time, Crow Game Warden was hunting outside the exterior boundary of the Crow Reservation, thus, no law violated. All ethics of a Crow Law Enforcement Officer remains in tact.(?)
 

VikingsGuy

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 2, 2017
Messages
2,892
Location
Twin Cities
That’s a bit of a jump comparing Herrera to Rosa Parks.
I was not saying the people or their chosen cause were equal - I was reacting to your statement that the answer to WY illegally enforcing their hunting regs on Herrera was for Herrera to save WY the money and embarrassment by just paying his fine - that is simply absurd in a free society.
 

VikingsGuy

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 2, 2017
Messages
2,892
Location
Twin Cities
I didn't at all.
Exactly what you said happened. Which is BS since they should have been one ones taking care of the problem they created on their land instead of joining sides with the tribe versus the state of WY G&F.

I am saying they should have gotten involved to take care of the problem, not fight against the state.

How in the world the feds made a treaty with the Indians, then told the state to manage the wildlife on the same land, and then essentially supported the tribe taking the state to court. Makes zero sense.
Weird line of thinking. The USFS and the Crow tribe agree that treaty hunting rights apply. Why is that a "problem" for them to solve just because WY disagrees? As for the feds, "told the state to manage the wildlife on the same land", would you be happier if the feds started managing all wildlife on federal lands in the west? Seems the opposite of what you would like, but you now seem to demand?
 
Last edited:

dcreiss

Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2016
Messages
74
Location
SD
So could I lease the trespass rights from the Crow Reservation to go into the Bighorns around August 25th with a rifle and kill a big ol Bull?
Negative, rights guaranteed by treaty are afforded to tribal members and are not able to be transferred by the tribe to non-Indians.
 

VikingsGuy

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 2, 2017
Messages
2,892
Location
Twin Cities
Occupied:

(of a place, especially a country) taken control of by military conquest or settlement.

"the occupied territories"

English apparently isn't taught in law school.

Nor is history. As in the same United States that days before was irradiating CROW, suddenly became so supportive of them as to give them rights to game FOREVER, the same game that fed their settlers and armies?

To belive any of that you first have to believe the CROW to be stupid(which I don't). So stupid they thought the same men killing them now wanted them to prosper.

Or that the United States idea for western expansion and manifest Destiny didn't include Wyoming Territory, including OCCUPYING IT.

The language clear. The context is clear. The history is clear.

Not surprising a room full of lawyers could screw it up.

After all these same lawyers found abortion the constitution. Made gun laws legal vs "Shall not be infringed", and found a way to circumvent private property rights in the Kelo decision.

After all I heard a lawyer once straight faced say " that depends on the meaning of is"

If we aren't going to enforce the language as written, and either ignore it, or redefine it, treaties are useless and can mean anything.

In 1868. OCCUPIED had a definite meaning. The men in uniforms signing it, WERE AN OCCUPYING FORCE.
Doesn't take a lawyer to point out that your analysis actually proves definitely that "occupied" can't be the military occupation of the time, as that would render the entire hunting clause meaningless from minute one and therefore would be a nonsensical definition at the time (and now). I am sure the Crow thank you for your helpful analysis.
 
Last edited:

VikingsGuy

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 2, 2017
Messages
2,892
Location
Twin Cities
Query... Has the Crow Tribe found their former Game Warden in violation of their tribal conservation F&G laws, specifically 12-5-107, Wanton Waste? Curious the state of "law" the Crow Tribe holds upon it's tribal members that violate their laws... especially those whom are responsible to enforce said laws?
Second thought... no worries, the, at the time, Crow Game Warden was hunting outside the exterior boundary of the Crow Reservation, thus, no law violated. All ethics of a Crow Law Enforcement Officer remains in tact.(?)
Query - good question. I think the answer is no. Disappointing (especially for a tribal LEO) but sadly not unique in America.

Second thought - I have no actual knowledge, but my guess would be yes.
 

ClearCreek

Active member
Joined
Jul 13, 2017
Messages
211
Rather than find the Crow Reservation Game Warden Supervisor in violation of any tribal F&G laws they demoted him to a position that is in charge of endangered species management on the reservation. And, most tribal members regard him as a hero for his actions in killing an elk on the Bighorn National Forest and the followup court proceedings that have taken place.

Regarding waste of meat from killed wildlife, this happens all the time during the fall and winter in northern Sheridan County, WY. Numerous buck deer and bull elk have been killed and either only the antlers removed or the entire animal has been left to spoil. And, I am not exaggerating when I say all the time during the fall and winter months.

ClearCreek
 

375H&H

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 16, 2017
Messages
1,070
Location
Northern Wyoming
Rather than find the Crow Reservation Game Warden Supervisor in violation of any tribal F&G laws they demoted him to a position that is in charge endangered species on the reservation. And, most tribal members regard him as a hero for doing what he did.

Regarding waste of meat from killed wildlife, this happens all the time during the fall and winter in northern Sheridan County, WY. Numerous buck deer and bull elk have been killed and either only the antlers removed or the entire animal has been left to spoil. And, I am not exaggerating when I say all the time during the fall and winter months.

ClearCreek
Are elk endangered on the Crow reservation?
 
Top