The May 20 U.S. Supreme Court opinion affirming Crow Tribe treaty hunting rights in Wyoming has reverberated into Montana.
Interesting...The May 20 U.S. Supreme Court opinion affirming Crow Tribe treaty hunting rights in Wyoming has reverberated into Montana.billingsgazette.com
That’s interesting. Montana is not appealing unlike Wyoming and Idaho who are. Just like we talked about in another thread, the intentions of the FWP and governor about actually implementing a grizzly hunt are unknown...but that should almost be another thread in itself, I digress.The Crow tribe is really going to have an influence on hunting in WY and MT between this and I did not realize they were also responsible for blocking the grizly hunt until recently.
But wildlife advocates and the Crow Indian Tribe successfully sued to stop the hunts. Their attorneys persuaded Christensen that despite the recovery of bears in Yellowstone, the species remains in peril elsewhere because of continued threats from climate change and habitat loss.
Tom McDonald must lives in some alternate universe if he actually believes what he said in those three quotes when it comes to the Crow tribe and reservation. The situation on the ground is just the opposite of what he said.Tom Mcdonald sounds like a real winner. Clearly he is unaware of what sparked the court case.
“A lot of it is not sport hunting, it’s subsistence hunting”
“Overhunting is not an issue”
“They all frown on waste of meat, that’s taboo”
It's clear he never leaves his office..Tom McDonald must lives in some alternate universe if he actually believes what he said in those three quotes when it comes to the Crow tribe and reservation. The situation on the ground is just the opposite of what he said.
Might not want to open the Australia treaty with aborigines can of worms...let’s just say it’s worth a google.Your points are fair - but with respect to this case and to many Tribes in the US - their rights have virtually nothing to do with their race, culture, language etc. Their ability to hunt unoccupied lands stems from a treaty their ancestors signed with the United States. A treaty that in most cases was ratified by the US Senate and signed by the President.
Of course, their previous occupation of lands, language, history, culture etc. all contribute to why and how we got to those treaties, but their treaty is what preserved those hunting rights...and thats why folks who've lived 5 generations in Idaho or Montana or Wyoming may have a strong connection to the land - but no legitimate claim to similar rights of Treaty Tribes.
As far as the court decision goes, I find it disappointing. Not because I personally dislike it, but because this ruling, along with similar court rulings on native hunting rights, seems to really ignore/misunderstand the original contexts in which the treaties were made.
Please chime in if I've got the wrong idea here, but this is how I see it:
188X US Gov't relegates sub-human people group to live in area A (reservation), and allowed to hunt in area A, plus area B (treaty-specified hunting grounds). White Americans can live and hunt anywhere, without restriction.
189X States begin to regulate hunting for US citizens
192X US Congress reclassifies sub-human people group as US citizens. They now have all the same legal rights as everyone else, such as the right live and hunt anywhere, including area B. Regulation of hunting in area A is up to the tribe.
So why would anyone conclude treaty-specified hunting rights in area B are broader than what WYGF determines them to be for anyone else, considering the later developments of game and fish regulation and granted citizenship?
I was only trying to work in the angle that congress/pres have authority to cancel or rewrite Indian treaties - they are just choosing not to. But I probably was layering on too many veiled parallels for that to make sense.The only thing to add to vikingsguy's story, pretend there was no expiration date or 20 year deal....
"Awful" because you don't think parties should honor contracts or treaties? It is easily fixed if the fate of western conservation is truly at risk - Congress and the Pres can write whatever new rules they will. That's how our constitutional government is designed to work.This was an awful ruling by "conservative" SCOTUS Gorsuch. The other SCOTUS justices you'd expect to rule this way.
As our Western Civilization falls further into Clown World, we will continue to see more of these issues come up & will continue to have to bear these burdens. It is unfortunate for Conservation in Western Civilization at large.
Ah, but is it? Once the judicial/legal system becomes terminally corrupted, our form of modern gubmint loses its critical 3rd leg. "Congress and the Pres" only 1 of 3 legs, no?It is easily fixed if the fate of western conservation is truly at risk - Congress and the Pres can write whatever new rules they will. That's how our constitutional government is designed to work.
Our judicial system has become too complex, expensive and slow for my tastes but it is not corrupt. It is one of the most independent court systems the world has. But of course it has political influences, and always has.Ah, but is it? Once the judicial/legal system becomes terminally corrupted, our form of modern gubmint loses its critical 3rd leg. "Congress and the Pres" only 1 of 3 legs, no?