U.S. supreme Court case - Big decision ahead

[375H&H]

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?

There are already significant roadless areas in the northern bighorns.

The problem is roadless areas don’t matter when the elk are off the mountain and on the winter range and visible. And judging by when the original elk were poached, December-February is exactly when they would be “hunting”.

Even just tonight there are still quite a few elk on the winter range that I can see from my house.

 

[375H&H]

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.

I sure hope the state of Wyoming doesn’t do that, or else bye bye sheep unit 12...

 

[npaden]

Just a note to add for those claiming that tribal entities can't manage wildlife....

I think the most expensive elk and mule deer tags (other than a very few auction tags) are on Indian reservations in Arizona and New Mexico.

 

[bobbydean]

2nd, npaden post.

Both the Jicarilla and Mescalero Apache manage their wildlife well!

 

[belly-deep]

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?

Each tribe decides their own rules for who can be a member. I would guess that only members can assert treaty rights, but that’s just a guess.

If anyone with lineage can hunt, I’ll be ordering an Ancestry DNA test with overnight shipping.

 

[gutshootem]

Well imagine that, the government screwed someone over, and now some more people are probably going to get screwed over. Lets vote for candidates that promise more government to fix this.

 

[Sytes]

This is in MT FWP's FAQ (.PDF)

Where can treaty tribes hunt?

They can hunt “open and unclaimed lands,” which are not universally defined by the courts, but are generally considered those federal public lands that are not set aside for uses incompatible with hunting, such as a national park. Many Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management lands constitute open and unclaimed lands.

 

[MTGomer]

Just a note to add for those claiming that tribal entities can't manage wildlife....

I think the most expensive elk and mule deer tags (other than a very few auction tags) are on Indian reservations in Arizona and New Mexico.

The Crow could have this too if they chose too. They have some of the best mule deer habitat in the state. They could also have great elk, whitetail and bighorn.

They already have the best bear hunting in the country. Tribal members for the most part won’t kill bears. For years Doyle Moss bought every available tag and took bears like this. Below is one of them. Now they will only let him get a couple so others have a shot at some tags too.

 

[3855WIN]

“Not universally defined” being key. What I think would be frustrating to Wyoming is that they are managing game for non residents who pay zero in hunting license fees.

 

[BluegrassBilly]

Herrera found an exception in the system, not really much different than corner-crossing, having a pilot drop you on an isolated federal parcel, or gaming the points systems. Maybe he should have capitalized on it by creating crow-hunt.com. I don't like it, nor that I wasn't born with a trust fund. But rights are rights.

On remand, I have very little confidence in the "conservation" argument. The issue wasn't addressed at the intermediate appellate court, but it's hard to see how you could square the theory with the Court's ruling that the treaty is valid and the land is unoccupied. The big test, as others have mentioned, is what does "occupied" mean. I see BLM grazing land to be a big point of contention, and I don't like the idea of natives and ranchers being in conflict while armed.

Regarding public ownership of wildlife - the state does not own wildlife; the public owns the wildlife. The state manages them in trust for the public. The public (vis-a-vis the federal government) negotiated a priority interest in this trust to the Crow. It's time for Wyoming to negotiate with the Crow to self-regulate, but this time the Crow have all the bargaining power.

 

[antlerradar]

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?

There is likely very few Crows left that are 100% Crow blood. Wouldn't surprise me it there are more tribal members that are less than 20% Crow that are 100%.

Hossblur. You are right about the stronger tribes taking the land of the weaker ones. Two hundred years ago the Crows where one of the weak tribes. They were being squished by the powerful alliance of Sioux and Cheyenne to the East and south and the Blackfeet to the north and west. There is a reason that the Crows sided with the white's. Had the US army not come along the Crows would have likely been wiped form the map.

 

[AvidIndoorsman]

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 not aware of a tribe that requires 100% bloodline, typical standard seems to be around 1/8 to 1/16. There is actually a pretty high bar to get membership in most tribes, and this treaty is not with all tribes just this particular tribe.

Anyone can take a blood test and say I'm x/x native american, but joining a tribe (especially those with some sort of benefits, mineral royalties, casino income, etc.) can be extremely difficult. Typically to gain membership you have prove lineage, for instance to become a member of the Cherokee tribe you have have someone in your direct lineage that was on the tribal roll (Dawes roll), this means you have to furnish the tribe with birth and death certificates for every relative back to the individual on the role, some tribes like the crow require that if your grandparents weren't married that you provide blood tests... which is impossible if they are deceased. If your bloodline is to your father, grandfather, etc. and they aren't on the relevant birth certificate than you're SOL... also as I referred to before if an ancestor was born before 1952, and was adopted off the rez then those records are likely sealed, and a new birth certificate issued. It was also common practice to change the race of babies on birth certificates. It's very possible to take a DNA test have it show > 50% native american heritage and not be able to gain tribal membership... saw this play out first hand.

 

[icebreaker12]

I'm not aware of a tribe that requires 100% bloodline, typical standard seems to be around 1/8 to 1/16. There is actually a pretty high bar to get membership in most tribes, and this treaty is not with all tribes just this particular tribe.

Anyone can take a blood test and say I'm x/x native american, but joining a tribe (especially those with some sort of benefits, mineral royalties, casino income, etc.) can be extremely difficult. Typically to gain membership you have prove lineage, for instance to become a member of the Cherokee tribe you have have someone in your direct lineage that was on the tribal roll (Dawes roll), this means you have to furnish the tribe with birth and death certificates for every relative back to the individual on the role, some tribes like the crow require that if your grandparents weren't married that you provide blood tests... which is impossible if they are deceased. If your bloodline is to your father, grandfather, etc. and they aren't on the relevant birth certificate than your sol... also as I referred to before if an ancestor was born before 1952, and was adopted off the rez then those records are likely sealed, and a new birth certificate issued. It was also common practice to change the race of babies on birth certificates. It's very possible to take a DNA test have it show > 50% native american heritage and not be able to gain tribal membership... saw this play out first hand.

A quick google search reveals Crow requires 25% based on the 1953 census.

 

[icebreaker12]

On remand, I have very little confidence in the "conservation" argument. The issue wasn't addressed at the intermediate appellate court, but it's hard to see how you could square the theory with the Court's ruling that the treaty is valid and the land is unoccupied. The big test, as others have mentioned, is what does "occupied" mean. I see BLM grazing land to be a big point of contention, and I don't like the idea of natives and ranchers being in conflict while armed.

This argument has been used by a state (Oregon? California?) on one of their fish stocks. So it's not unheard of.

Regarding public ownership of wildlife - the state does not own wildlife; the public owns the wildlife. The state manages them in trust for the public. The public (vis-a-vis the federal government) negotiated a priority interest in this trust to the Crow. It's time for Wyoming to negotiate with the Crow to self-regulate, but this time the Crow have all the bargaining power.

What exact incentive does the Crow have to even enter a negotiation?

 

[antlerradar]

A quick google search reveals Crow requires 25% based on the 1953 census.

1953 is three, may be four generations ago. A member today could qualify with much less than 25% Crow blood.

 

[bobbydean]

I always thought I had some Choctaw blood. Maternal grandfather married a Choctaw. Did a genetic test recently and came up 99% Irish. I think his wife was his second wife.

 

[PrairieHunter]

Just about everyone in Oklahoma claims to be part native. My family included, but when my mom took her DNA test we were just like all the other fake natives and found out like Warren that we were not. I still give her crap about this sometimes.

My wife is a card carrying Choctaw tribe member and my daughter also has a card. You don't have to have much native blood, just documentation to prove it.

Trying to figure out how I can use this to my advantage LOL.

 

[Sytes]

Heard Warren booked a tribal hunt...

 

[BuzzH]

Looks like treaties matter, who would have ever guessed?

 

[Lost Arra]

A treaty is a treaty and they do matter but:
Why was Herrera's first defense mistaken location, aka he was lost?
Why did the other poachers plead guilty and pay a fine?

I don't think Herrera knew a 19th century treaty from a Waffle House menu
Lawyers grabbed this and ran with it. Then from the recent articles they have told Herrera to keep his yap shut.

It would only take a few wanton waste photos of their "subsistence hunting" on social media or popular media to pressure the Crows to actually consider managing wildlife as is done by New Mex and Ariz tribes.
The wasteful slaughter of game (carcasses with just the head removed) is what rubs me wrong. No different than ivory poaching in Africa.