Unoccupied will be viewed through the eyes of a Crow tribe member in the 1880s. Are there towns/settlements, are the active ranches and farms, etc? Things like BLM status, designation as a park or a wildness, a "forest" or a landmark etc will have no meaning in the determination of occupied.
There were transient people, trappers, hunters, marshalls, military scouts etc at the time - if that counted as occupied then there would have been no unoccupied even at treaty signing. This approach has zero chance.
Hunting is a word that does not need further definition even today. How, when and where and why you hunt may vary, but the word hunt hasn’t changed much in the language, so the distinction is perfectly logical. Also Indians were already rifle hunting by the time of this treaty so not helpful there either.
Yellowstone Park was established in 1872 so it appears to have been occupied when the treaty was signed based on this line of reasoning.
I thought the treaty was in 1868...
National forests are patrolled by forest rangers as well...
Hunting sure needs further definition. Does “hunting” include wanton waste? Or is that term not even relevant due to this treaty?
Not negative, just a lawyer who is familiar with appellate court practice - and a casual watcher of how the Mille Lacs matter has gone for the last decade in MN. I doubt visitors will be relevant to the discussion - but I would guess some of the the built up areas of national parks may be "occupied" - like lodges at Yellowstone.
Occupied is NOT a legal status, but a rather actual "settlement".
Wanton waste occurs after hunting and is a separate concept. I don't like it either, but the legal framework here is not set to our 2019 sensibilities but to 1868 indian understandings.
You’re right, wouldn’t want to do that like we do for ALL other US citizens.
So it was. Yellowstone was unoccupied at that time then. I stand corrected.
