Wow, sometimes I forget how out of touch with reality you are. If I remember correctly you are the one who also thinks our food supply is safe in spite of foreign companies owning the largest meat companies in the US and corporate greed compromising our food at every turn.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?
The feds are working this out...they signed a treaty, treaties are the supreme law of the land, and Wyoming took actions in violation of the treaty...so the feds intervened to straighten out the mess Wy created. You keep saying there's this 'problem', but it seems to be your inability to acknowledge or understand tribal treaty rights.The people who entered into the treaty should be the ones working this out. Their treaty , their land, their problem. Not a difficult concept to wrap your mind around.
Do you really think it makes sense for Wyoming to do this again and expect a different outcome?
What's absolutely weird about this is the feds taking the side of the tribes and taking no responsibility for their participation in the treaty or in enforcing laws on their property with their own LEO's.
Correct. Wyoming and every other state should check with DC before doing anything. Big Brother is in charge. Wyoming is essentially in the same position Indian tribes were in 150 years ago.The feds are working this out...they signed a treaty, treaties are the supreme law of the land, and Wyoming took actions in violation of the treaty...so the feds intervened to straighten out the mess Wy created. You keep saying there's this 'problem', but it seems to be your inability to acknowledge or understand tribal treaty rights.
Not quite. Treaties in general can be renegotiated and the vast majority of modern treaties have unilateral termination/withdrawal provisions. As for 19th century Indian Treaties, for the the most part the courts have said that congress + pres can unilaterally change and force on tribes by enactment of statute (and many old treaties actually provide for the president to unilaterally terminate even without statutory enactment). But as it comes to the states - yes, treaties trump every time. Tribal relations is (and always has been) a primary federal accountability - states right has it place, but not here. If the federal government agreed with WY, they could fix this fairly simply.So if I'm reading correctly 'treaty' is the only absolute term in government. Every other law, policy, culturally grandfathered behaviour, code, etc is lobby fodder...correct? This dude and case should have it's picture in Webster's illustrating counterintuitive. The SC punted...
Within your thoughtful post I saw two lines of questions. First, why do we continue the tribe/treaty/nation-within-a-nation/reservation approach? Second, within the current system, why do natives receive benefits others do not? Both fair questions.*Before reading this post, please understand that I am only asking the following questions to spark a deeper conversation, I am not complaining nor angry with any group of people involved.
At the risk of sounding less than compassionate to the history of the native american people, why haven't we found a better way than reservations, treaties, and divide? I understand that in the 1800s we needed to do something to end the fighting, but are they really serving either side any good any longer?
I also understand the native americans have gone through some unspeakable tough times at the hands of the white settlers, and those actions may never be forgiven. However, everyone involved in those unspeakable acts from both sides are no longer with us.
Why then, does our government continue to treat a (relatively) small population of people differently than the rest? There have been many isolated groups of people throughout the world's history that have been treated horribly, yet we don't intentionally treat them different to the extent that the native american people are treated different.
I may be ignorant to the native american culture as I have never spent much time with them, but I have driven through countless reservations on my travels across the west. I don't recall seeing teepees, horses, warriors training with their bows and tomahawks, groups of people making crafts out of the animals they harvest, etc. I see pickups and cars, houses, gas stations, bars, restaurants and everything else a non-reservation town has. Now I understand there are still activities to celebrate their traditional way of life, but for all practical purposes the native american lifestyle in today's world looks very similar to everyone elses way of life. Why does one group of people get to hunt on or off reservation outside of season? Hunting has been a part of my family's tradition just as long as theirs. We have been feeding our family with the game we harvest just like they feed theirs. Yes, they were a little more dependent on wildgame and hunting later into this nation's history than most of our families, but it's a little tough to argue that someone is still dependent on hunting to survive when they are driving trucks and cars to their hunting spots, and when they don't bag an elk there is a grocery store and a pre-paid card from the government to buy food.
Is it maybe time to realize the ways of old are in the past, find a way forward that does not involve reservations and government dependence? It seems that the current system is not beneficial to either side.
I have read and re-read this post many times and tried my best not to sound attacking in any way. If something seems offensive, please remember it was not my intention.
My statements were in regards to allegations the US Government created a mess...Treaties having supremacy over state law is a critical concept to understand in this specific case.Idahohuntr,
There are points within that hold resolution... It's not a setting such as, "treaty is supreme law, now shut it."
Can not change the typing below back to regular v italics... Meh, is what it is. Forum bug.
I'm very interested how States work the "conservation" portion left open by America's Supreme judicial body. This is not a WY deal... This can o worms has just been opened nationally...
Fair enough, I certainly respect your opinion. My opinion regarding "conservation" relates to the following SCOTUS discussion as shared in the SCOTUSblog and the actual SCOTUS ruling.My statements were in regards to allegations the US Government created a mess...Treaties having supremacy over state law is a critical concept to understand in this specific case.
I don't fully understand your point - but you bring up the conservation issue...unless elk are facing extinction in Wyoming, there won't be a lot of regulation from WY over Crow and other Tribe members hunting the Bighorns and probably many/most other public lands in WY. This is why I've been adamant the state needs to find its way to the co-management table.
https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/05/opinion-analysis-court-rejects-issue-preclusion-in-affirming-crow-tribes-treaty-hunting-right/In affirming the tribe’s treaty hunting right, the court stressed that this right is not unlimited. Portions of the national forest may be legally “occupied” under the treaty language, it noted, and Wyoming retains the power to impose nondiscriminatory conservation regulations on tribal treaty rights under well-established precedent.
On remand, the State may press its arguments as to why the
application of state conservation regulations to Crow Tribe
members exercising the 1868 Treaty right is necessary for
conservation. We do not pass on the viability of those
* * *
The judgment of the Wyoming District Court of the
Fourth Judicial District, Sheridan County, is vacated, and
the case is remanded for further proceedings not incon-
sistent with this opinion.
Is it time for the federal government to step in and pass legislation on treaty rights? I and not asking for the treaty's to be voided. That has little chance of passing and would be unfair to the tribes. On the other side, after reading this thread and in the Idaho sheep thread it is clear that some of the tribal members are using the treaty's to hunt in ways that are above and beyond the intentions and expectations of the original signors. If state law can not be used to curb the excesses then it is up the federal government.Not quite. Treaties in general can be renegotiated and the vast majority of modern treaties have unilateral termination/withdrawal provisions. As for 19th century Indian Treaties, for the the most part the courts have said that congress + pres can unilaterally change and force on tribes by enactment of statute (and many old treaties actually provide for the president to unilaterally terminate even without statutory enactment). But as it comes to the states - yes, treaties trump every time. Tribal relations is (and always has been) a primary federal accountability - states right has it place, but not here. If the federal government agreed with WY, they could fix this fairly simply.