I think I better understand your point. Having listened to the oral arguments and in combination with other case law on "conservation necessity" issues with Tribes/States in the Pacific Northwest I am aware of - I think some folks are reading too much into the door left slightly open by SCOTUS. Because Wyoming argued the Treaty was not valid off-reservation - they had no reason to argue about conservation necessity or if the specific location of harvest was technically occupied. All SCOTUS said in the majority opinion was that Wyomings arguments failed, the Treaty exists, however the State may wish to argue occupied or conservation in lower courts if they so choose.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.
Wyoming's State conservation efforts, by the creation of the WGFD, are "non-discriminatory".
*Also, the use of bold imprint is merely to highlight the specific portions of interest. Not intended to raise hairs.
From the actual ruling;
I think the Tribes In NM are very different people from the Montana Tribes.Antlerrader's approach does seem to be the common sense way to solve this problem. Of course, law has very little to do with common sense!
New Mexico does have 20 plus Indian reservations. Not all are without problems. But the problems usually do not the extreme that you guys in the North deal with. I sincerely hope you find a solution.
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....