U.S. supreme Court case - Big decision ahead

[VikingsGuy]

I’m just sayin that this idea of a nation with a nation isn’t self sustaining.

I agree, it is a legal and social mess. But I doubt we have the will/interest collectively to come up with an alternative at this point - no real easy answers.

 

[Sytes]

Gotta say, I am disappointed in the lack of empathy displayed too many times in this thread - including one not-so-veiled threat of vigilante justice. The reservations I have seen are a sad mess, but so are some portions of our major metropolitan areas and some of our struggling rural areas - our propensity to blame minorities for their lot and at the same time largely ignore the equally struggling poor white families does a disservice to both groups. One group is blamed, the other ignored. Helping all find their "boot straps" with less judgmentalism would be a nice step towards MAGA in my opinion.

Yet, a select population in America seeks a socialized setting vs our mixed economy we reside... If anything may be learned, one would find the correlation between gov't hand outs and dependency.

 

[PrairieHunter]

I agree, it is a legal and social mess. But I doubt we have the will/interest collectively to come up with an alternative at this point - no real easy answers.

IMO at this point we are all just waiting to see how the tribe responds. If they start slaughtering elk and deer in velvet during July and August along with moose and sheep in and around the bighorns it will be a much different story than a couple brave guys crossing the border to shoot a handful of elk near the res. Will they be shooting right by peoples expensive homes like they do north of the park or away from toursist/hikers. Will there be an issue with vehicles getting broken into, vandalism, etc...


Can you imagine having waited years to draw a tag from out of state, heading out in Sept for archery season in the bighorns, working a herd and BOOM, native whacks the bull you are chasing with a rifle from 300 yards.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

IMO at this point we are all just waiting to see how the tribe responds. If they start slaughtering elk and deer in velvet during July and August along with moose and sheep in and around the bighorns it will be a much different story than a couple brave guys crossing the border to shoot a handful of elk near the res. Will they be shooting right by peoples expensive homes like they do north of the park or away from toursist/hikers. Will there be an issue with vehicles getting broken into, vandalism, etc...


Can you imagine having waited years to draw a tag from out of state, heading out in Sept for archery season in the bighorns, working a herd and BOOM, native whacks the bull you are chasing with a rifle from 300 yards.

There is a thread about that very thing happening to a hunt talker on a sheep hunt by a member of the Ute tribe... scary shit
https://www.hunttalk.com/threads/a-sheep-story-part-2-s71.281747/

 

[VikingsGuy]

.

If anything may be learned, one would find the correlation between gov't hand outs and dependency.

Yup - the Great Society may very well have created more problems than it solved. But I wasn't talking specific social policy - more about basic respect and dignity.

 

[HSi-ESi]

Trying to keep this out of (or get it out of) the gutter.

Life, social influences and racial issues are so much more nuanced than this thread has let on. Blanket/absolute statements on ANY issue just lead to you being lead around by a collar that you put on yourself.

I'm not a lawyer but if that's the divisive line in the sand for America (lawyers vs non-lawyers), we're in trouble.

I would hope that this thread can just focus on the issue at hand, which is the US Supreme Court decision itself, for those that have lost their way.

 

[3855WIN]

Hope is rarely a great strategy, but last time I saw RGB in person (in a crowd, never have met her directly) she didn't look very spry.

VikingsGuy, give me the legal reading on this.
The Crows have off reservation hunting rights. Since they don’t own the land, how are they able to break Wyoming state game laws on this land? I can lease hunting rights on private land, but am unable to break laws while hunting. So what’s the difference?

 

[idahohuntr]

Gotta say, I am disappointed in the lack of empathy displayed too many times in this thread - including one not-so-veiled threat of vigilante justice. The reservations I have seen are a sad mess, but so are some portions of our major metropolitan areas and some of our struggling rural areas - our propensity to blame minorities for their lot and at the same time largely ignore the equally struggling poor white families does a disservice to both groups. One group is blamed, the other ignored. Helping all find their "boot straps" with less judgmentalism would be a nice step towards MAGA in my opinion.

When one thinks of just how poor and non-influential many tribal members are, particularly from a rural reservation like the Crow, one thing that resonates with me on this case is how Herrera/Crow Tribe had the full backing of the United States via the Solicitor General. Rural, impoverished, desolate tribe...hammered in State and appellate courts...and the entity that signed that treaty over a century ago shows up to defend our word (the treaty) in the highest court in the land. Pretty amazing country we live in.

 

[VikingsGuy]

VikingsGuy, give me the legal reading on this.
The Crows have off reservation hunting rights. Since they don’t own the land, how are they able to break Wyoming state game laws on this land? I can lease hunting rights on private land, but am unable to break laws while hunting. So what’s the difference?

Federal treaties trump state game & fish regulations - has been the case since 1920 (Missouri v Holland). If a treaty is read to allow person X to do activity Y, then there is nothing a state can do to stop that. Since in this particular case, the "conservation" question was left somewhat open by the court, it's still possible some state regs will be found to be compatible with the federal treaty, but I wouldn't expect much give how this approach has played out in other states.

As an aside, given the expansion of the commerce clause since 1920, I doubt modern federal regulation of game animals would require any treaty angle like in the days of Holland. While court cases referred to on this site from time to time repeat the general principle that local game management is the sole purview of the state govt in trust for its citizens, I have zero doubt this remains true in 2019 only by the foreberance of the federal government. The feds already have a heavy hand in waterfowl hunting and it would be legally straight forward to regulate the hunting of all species which may in some part cross state lines, may at times live on federal lands, and/or may be somehow the subject of interstate tourism (like me going from MN to WY to hunt). I doubt the feds care enough to do something, but I do not believe there is anything written in legal stone that says the states have absolute and exclusive right to govern game. The states have the power because the feds allow them to.

 

[PrairieHunter]

When one thinks of just how poor and non-influential many tribal members are, particularly from a rural reservation like the Crow, one thing that resonates with me on this case is how Herrera/Crow Tribe had the full backing of the United States via the Solicitor General. Rural, impoverished, desolate tribe...hammered in State and appellate courts...and the entity that signed that treaty over a century ago shows up to defend our word (the treaty) in the highest court in the land. Pretty amazing country we live in.

Good point.

Even more amazing is the USFS LEO in charge of the federal property where this happened was not involved and instead threw the game warden and state of Wyoming under the bus.

I would really like to see the state force the USFS LEO's and lawyers to get involved with this as they are the landowner and they are they are from the same government that signed the treaty. Yet they pass the buck and expect the state to fight their fight and waste millions on something they signed.

 

[BrentD]

VikingsGuy, give me the legal reading on this.
The Crows have off reservation hunting rights. Since they don’t own the land, how are they able to break Wyoming state game laws on this land? I can lease hunting rights on private land, but am unable to break laws while hunting. So what’s the difference?

You are not really leasing hunting rights. You are leasing trespass rights for the purpose of hunting. The hunting, remains a state/fed controlled activity

 

[3855WIN]

You are not really leasing hunting rights. You are leasing trespass rights for the purpose of hunting. The hunting, remains a state/fed controlled activity

So could I lease the trespass rights from the Crow Reservation to go into the Bighorns around August 25th with a rifle and kill a big ol Bull?

 

[VikingsGuy]

As we near 500 comments on this thread thought I would offer one personal note intended to clarify where I tend to stand, as often I have found myself trying to explain my understanding (as imperfect as it is) of the legal situation more so than declaring my own preferences.

FWIW, I wished the court would have ruled in favor of WY on issue preclusion/estoppel grounds in light of Repsis. I am concerned that local tribal governments are stretched thin and have bigger problems on their hands, and it is difficult to see how they will "police" the off the reservation treaty rights exercised by their members. In a less politically charged time, they may well ask WY to enforce rules like wanton waste on their behalf, but I doubt that is a political reality in 2019. I am concerned that an understandable desire not to be told what to do by non-indians may result in reluctance to do the "right" thing by way of conservation and sustainable herds. I am also concerned that the state of WY will want to pursue "victory" at all costs and not sincerely bargain for a middle ground outcome. But I am neither a WY resident or a tribal member so I will try to be understanding of their opposing positions as I watch from afar.

In the end, the most important thing to me is that the rule of law prevail over the immediate desires of a power wielding portion of society. Too often in our history involving matters of race, the urgent need of the majority (land, oil, field labor, heat of war, fear of former slaves and now desire for a particular approach to game management) has trumped the rule of law and principles underlying it. Our SCOTUS has signed off on politically favorable (at the time) and expedient rulings in things like Dredd Scott, Korematsu (japanese internment), Chae Chan (chinese immigration), Plessy v Ferguson and Race Horse. I am glad this time that they did not do that. I believe that both the court's holding and its dissent were logical and thoughtful approaches, I preferred Alito's approach but can respect Sotomayer's as well.

 

[BrentD]

So could I lease the trespass rights from the Crow Reservation to go into the Bighorns around August 25th with a rifle and kill a big ol Bull?

Maybe. Some of the Apache reservations in Arizona seem to have control of their elk tags. Perhaps it could be the same for the Crow and big game in the Bighorns, but the Bighorns are not in the reservation and the Crows have one treaty and the Apache another.

Maybe you should try and see if the Crow will take you up on it and then the two of you can get together and battle it through the SCOTUS.

 

[VikingsGuy]

So could I lease the trespass rights from the Crow Reservation to go into the Bighorns around August 25th with a rifle and kill a big ol Bull?

No, because they don't possess control of the land, they merely have a tribal right to hunt on it - and I haven't seen any cases that allow a tribe to "sub-license" their treaty right to non-tribal members.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Good point.

Even more amazing is the USFS LEO in charge of the federal property where this happened was not involved and instead threw the game warden and state of Wyoming under the bus.

I would really like to see the state force the USFS LEO's and lawyers to get involved with this as they are the landowner and they are they are from the same government that signed the treaty. Yet they pass the buck and expect the state to fight their fight and waste millions on something they signed.

States don't get to "force" federal employees to do anything. USFS did not pass the buck - two administrations side with the tribe and recognized their hunt as legal so from their perspective there was nothing to fight over - WY on its own decided to pursue this issue - so of course it was at their cost.

 

[3855WIN]

Viking, thanks for the legal info earlier. You want to see rule of law prevail. How does the rule of law prevail when game laws are cast aside so that a tribe can hunt out of season and leave meat to rot? If that’s “rule of law”, I want nothing to do with it.

 

[375H&H]

States don't get to "force" federal employees to do anything. USFS did not pass the buck - two administrations side with the tribe and recognized their hunt as legal so from their perspective there was nothing to fight over - WY on its own decided to pursue this issue - so of course it was at their cost.

Wyoming did not pursue the issue, Herrera (actually his lawyer) did. Herrera appealed to higher courts, not Wyoming. Had he paid his poaching fine and accepted punishment, this would have gone no further, like his friends did.

 

[El Jason]

Good point.

Even more amazing is the USFS LEO in charge of the federal property where this happened was not involved and instead threw the game warden and state of Wyoming under the bus.

I would really like to see the state force the USFS LEO's and lawyers to get involved with this as they are the landowner and they are they are from the same government that signed the treaty. Yet they pass the buck and expect the state to fight their fight and waste millions on something they signed.

It's not SOP for USFS LEOs to enforce state laws.

They aren't passing the buck by not getting involved. The Forest Service didn't sign the treaty. Nor do they have primary jurisdiction to address the issue of state game management authority relative to tribal treaty hunting rights.

 

[El Jason]

Viking, thanks for the legal info earlier. You want to see rule of law prevail. How does the rule of law prevail when game laws are cast aside so that a tribe can hunt out of season and leave meat to rot? If that’s “rule of law”, I want nothing to do with it.

You are conflating state law with rule of law. State law pertains to those within the state who fall under the authority of that. Tribal members fall under the authority of tribal law. Tribal seasons do not have to coincide with state seasons.