• Thank you for creating an account on Hunt Talk! We require that all new users contribute at least 10 posts before gaining the ability to start new threads. Once you have made 10 posts, you will be able to start new threads in the forum.

U.S. supreme Court case - Big decision ahead

Gila

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 8, 2019
Messages
364
Location
New Mexico
I think the Tribes In NM are very different people from the Montana Tribes.
Actually, there are other matters in New Mexico beyond the reservations. The land grants issues are heating up again. The residents of these land grants believe that parts of the National Forests belong to them and the game is theirs for the taking. Just a month ago a local rancher told me that members of a land grant had ganged up on him and tried to remove him from his ranch. The local media doesn't like to report on these issues as they have been going on for a very long time.

The contract is between the states and the Federal Government. Treaties are not contracts. A treaty is a formally concluded and ratified agreement between countries. The Crow are a sovereign nation. The Crow treaties take on the characteristics of a conditional surrender based upon their right to exist. I am in no position to agree or disagree with the SCOTUS decision. I am of the opinion that we can come up with agreements that recognize the Tribes' needs to subsistence hunt and minimize the impact to Sport hunting. As Spock once said: "The needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few, or the one".

 
Last edited:

Mtnhuntr

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 26, 2017
Messages
1,239
Circuit Court judge just issued decision on the remand from SCOTUS. Conclusion is that tribal members must abide by the Wyoming G&F regs. The legal wrangling will continue but this is a significant development.

 

neffa3

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 17, 2015
Messages
4,014
Location
Wenatchee
Cundiff’s order cites a Crow Fish and Wildlife Commission code adopted in 1992 that recognizes a need for resource conservation regulations for Crow Tribal members who hunt and fish off-reservation.

The court further found that Repsis did clarify a binding agreement between the Crow Tribe and the state regarding the need for wildlife conservation, and that WGFD regulations were “reasonable and necessary for conservation,” including for off-reservation treaty hunting.
 

idahohuntr

Active member
Joined
Dec 19, 2013
Messages
150
Based on the SCOTUS ruling I don't see this latest decision by a local Wyoming court lasting very long. While this ruling stems from SCOTUS remanding the case back to lower courts to address occupied lands and conservation arguments, I don't think there is a chance either issue leads to a sound legal conclusion that Crow Tribal hunters are bound to WGF regulations. The state already basically lost the occupation argument, unless Hererra shot this elk in a developed recreation site or something where firing a weapon creates a safety issue that issue won't go anywhere, and conservation necessity is a relatively high bar that has been litigated repeatedly in the pacific northwest...lets just say, "follow the state regs" is rarely how things go. The only wild card is this agreement signed by Crow Nation and WGFD...I've not heard of this and maybe it does have some legal impact on the case, details will be important and even if it affected this case, no reason the Crow couldn't tear it up and continue on with off reservation hunting. I imagine the United States, as it has done for the last several decades, will be weighing in on behalf of a Treaty Tribe and Wyoming should prepare for another high profile beat down.
 
Top