U.S. supreme Court case - Big decision ahead

[Jape]

Following Randy's example, anyone have a gauge on actual or potential negotiation talks between Wyoming G&F and the Crow tribe? Given this decision, I can see a well organized mediation/negotiation doing wonders to broker a deal that benefits all parties.

 

[Addicting]

Hmm

https://twitter.com/x/status/1130483302991847425

This seems like a very dumb move. If it’s been remanded to the County Court the issue is not over and seems a little early to encourage use of the treaty until the lower court makes its decision and the next rounds appeals are done.

 

[Irrelevant]

If you simply read the facts on this particular case, from the background, to the act, the number of elk shot (some not found/recovered), getting caught, bragging on social media, the lies that were told along the way, etc, up until now and this ruling, it is very difficult for me to feel like justice was served. He was a game warden, he knew the rules, he knew where he was. There is zero chance in my opinion that he alone, out of the three total in his hunting party, knew he was acting under treaty rights, while the other two admitted to poaching. Some may point to the justice of treaty rights in this ruling, but if I stand back and take a deep breath it doesn't pass my smell test. It feels more like a drunk driver getting off on a technicality.

I find too often "we" don't take the time to step back to assess the big picture, but spend all out time on a bread crumb trail of minutia to finally look up and like where we've ended up.

 

[idahohuntr]

Wyoming has little wiggle room here...if they try to apply a conservation standard it cannot be on the backs of the tribe...there are many cases in the pacific northwest which have laid this out. For example, wyoming cant have a recreational elk season and simply force the tribe to follow state laws...furthermore, the conservation burden is very high...it cant be "we are managing for older age class bulls in this unit", or anything like that.

Bottom line, wyoming and montana tribes will have much larger off reservation deer/elk harvest than in the recent past as a result of this ruling and the states are wasting their time if they try and interfere with these treaty rights.

 

[rmauch20]

Following Randy's example, anyone have a gauge on actual or potential negotiation talks between Wyoming G&F and the Crow tribe? Given this decision, I can see a well organized mediation/negotiation doing wonders to broker a deal that benefits all parties.

Why would they negotiate. They came way with free reign. They have nothing to gain by negotiating. Why would they care about getting a handful of tags when they can go shoot whatever/whenever they want now. Sorry if that comes across bigoted, as I have been called, but that’s literally what they can do now. The Conservation model used on the reservations tell me all I need to know about how much they truly care about conservation.

 

[3855WIN]

Following Randy's example, anyone have a gauge on actual or potential negotiation talks between Wyoming G&F and the Crow tribe? Given this decision, I can see a well organized mediation/negotiation doing wonders to broker a deal that benefits all parties.

I like your way of thinking, but what incentive does the Crow Tribe have to negotiate? They just got what was rightfully theirs.

 

[JM77]

This may boil down to the "unoccupied" definition. If NFS lands are leased for grazing, there is a strong argument that those are occupied.

I also don't hear anyone talking about the lands in Montana that are affected. The treaty covers both states.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I like your way of thinking, but what incentive does the Crow Tribe have to negotiate? They just got what was rightfully theirs.

Little more complicated than that... the state could still ticket you with poaching say they have the right to as game laws are based on conservation and make you pay huge fines. If you fight it long enough you might win... but Herrera took 5 years from the offense till now. I can't imagine your average tribal member is going to want to deal with that.

The question is does WY stick to it's guns, does the tribe...

 

[MTGomer]

The Crow tribe has bigger issues than negotiating this.

AJ is hoping to live out his term without being put in federal prison or at a minimum recalled.

They have tens of millions they spent unaccounted for from their water settlement, owe contractors and engineers another 7 or 8 million for work that’s been completed. On top of that, under his leadership they’ve become associated with the Former Rocky Boys chairman Ken St Marks who led Rocky Boys at the time a bunch of people went to the federal penitentiary for embezzling and fraud related to their water settlement.

On top of all that coal mining is in the shitter and the Absaloka mine is/was responsible for about 80% of the tribe’s general funding and that is dissolving quickly.

They as a government have way bigger issues than worrying about what Wyoming thinks of dead elk.

 

[rmauch20]

Little more complicated than that... the state could still ticket you with poaching say they have the right to as game laws are based on conservation and make you pay huge fines. If you fight it long enough you might win... but Herrera took 5 years from the offense till now. I can't imagine your average tribal member is going to want to deal with that.

The question is does WY stick to it's guns, does the tribe...

The next tribal member that will be ticketed for poaching won’t have to take it all the way to the Supreme Court the precedent has been set.

 

[Jape]

Little more complicated than that... the state could still ticket you with poaching say they have the right to as game laws are based on conservation and make you pay huge fines. If you fight it long enough you might win... but Herrera took 5 years from the offense till now. I can't imagine your average tribal member is going to want to deal with that.

The question is does WY stick to it's guns, does the tribe...

Wllm1313 makes a great point. All issues have not been fully litigated. There are risks associated with that potential litigation and either side could lose and lose big. Do they really want to risk that? Maybe, maybe not. In the meantime, Wyoming will continue to manage the wildlife for the foreseeable future. They still have enforcement power. To that extent, they still have leverage, albeit not has much as they had before this case started.

 

[idahohuntr]

This may boil down to the "unoccupied" definition. If NFS lands are leased for grazing, there is a strong argument that those are occupied.

I also don't hear anyone talking about the lands in Montana that are affected. The treaty covers both states.

A grazing lease wont have any effect. Any of us that hunt NF or BLM lands have probably hunted leased lands. Also, the humor was not lost in oral arguments when the federal govt, aka the landowner, said these NF lands were unoccupied as it relates to the treaty. Wyoming needs to just sit quietly and read up on tribal treaty law.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

In my mind WY and MT want to be able to manage and enforce without litigation... I would imagine the tribes wants hunting privileges and money for it's members. If WY gives the trip a couple sheep tags that they can auction off for 200K, plus a bunch of elk tags I'm sure that would bring them to the table.

 

[idahohuntr]

Wllm1313 makes a great point. All issues have not been fully litigated. There are risks associated with that potential litigation and either side could lose and lose big. Do they really want to risk that? Maybe, maybe not. In the meantime, Wyoming will continue to manage the wildlife for the foreseeable future. They still have enforcement power. To that extent, they still have leverage, albeit not has much as they had before this case started.

As I mentioned above the conservation limit is a high bar...mt and wy wont be writing many/any tickets to off reservation harvest by treaty tribes as deer/elk are certainly not in peril in either of those states...at least in terms of the state being able to regulate tribal harvest.

 

[PrairieHunter]

In my mind WY and MT want to be able to manage and enforce without litigation... I would imagine the tribes wants hunting privileges and money for it's members. If WY gives the trip a couple sheep tags that they can auction off for 200K, plus a bunch of elk tags I'm sure that would bring them to the table.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

As I mentioned above the conservation limit is a high bar...mt and wy wont be writing many/any tickets to off reservation harvest by treaty tribes as deer/elk are certainly not in peril in either of those states...at least in terms of the state being able to regulate tribal harvest.

Sure so in 5 years maybe some tickets will get over turned if pursued...

See CO Sheriff not enforcing red flag orders, Kim Davis not issues marriage licenses, and as always the infamous parking off the side of the highway throw down between Mike and Buzz. I agree with "as deer/elk are certainly not in peril in either of those states...at least in terms of the state being able to regulate tribal harvest"... and they may not, but they may also say, "well we think we pass the conservation bar if you don't think so take us to court."

They may... may not... we shall see. MT definitely won't but WY seems more cavalier on their wildlife management.

 

[Jape]

They may... may not... we shall see. MT definitely won't but WY seems more cavalier on their wildlife management.

A perfect example is their treatment of wolves and grizzly as compared to their neighbors.

 

[hossblur]

I'm curious. The land belong to all of us, public land.

However, the wildlife belongs to the state of Wyoming. How's does the federal government dictate to the states on how their wildlife should be managed?

Second. Some of you need a refresher in history. These treaties were the only out the Indians had. They would have simply been wiped from the landscape. In short eradicated. So while it is true that treaties were broken, it is also true that they were one of two choices given. Sign it over, or be eradicated. I can't help but wonder when under today's thinking, the Utes, Navajo, Comanche, etc will need to vacate the land they forcibly took from weaker tribes? Etc, etc. Interesting how I sit on Goshute land( or what once was), that was then taken by Utes, yet we pretend it was the Europeans who mistreated their otherwise kind loving native hosts.

I descended from a line of original settlers into Utah(Mormons). The federal government sent armies against us. Missouri issued eradication orders. Guess next time I get pinched in Missouri I will claim some 200 yr old BS as an excuse for my lawless behavior?

 

[hossblur]

Just another question. I know with some reservations one has to be 100% bloodline tribe member. Is the same true there? I wonder if in order to claim treaty rights, should one not have to prove a lineage?

I'm watching this as we now see Grizzlies are sacred to Natives(unless they are killing them). Seems we've entered a very weird legal timeframe?

 

[3855WIN]

Would increasing roadless areas in the northern Bighorns help keep the kill down? It would seem most elk killed would be “easy” elk that would be near vehicle access. I might be naive, but how many elk would be killed with difficult access?