U.S. supreme Court case - Big decision ahead

[VikingsGuy]

Not conflating a damn thing. Outlaws left the Rez to shoot horns out of season and let the meat rot. This is lawlessness. Normal people can see this. Apparently, lawyers cannot.

Are people who drive 80 mph on an interstate highway violating law? You can't answer that until I tell you what law applies. In MN we have interstate posted at 45, 55, 60, 65 & 70. But then in SD we get up to lawful 80 mph. You are not lawless if you are complying with the laws that apply to you at that moment and ignore the ones that don't. Herrera is not an outlaw by hunting at the time and location he did because the wyoming season did not apply to him.

 

[hossblur]

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 why can't Wyoming allow hunting, just not killing. They are 2 distinctly different things?

 

[rmauch20]

And if Rosa Parks would have just sat in a perfectly comfortable seat in the back of the bus . . . . . . .

That’s a bit of a jump comparing Herrera to Rosa Parks.

 

[PrairieHunter]

You misread what I wrote. The United States absolutely got involved - they were on the side of Herrera. I believe in the oral arguments or briefings they not only argued statehood and forest designation did not terminate the treaty...they even flatly stated the Bighorn NF is not occupied land in terms of the treaty.

I didn't at all.
Exactly what you said happened. Which is BS since they should have been one ones taking care of the problem they created on their land instead of joining sides with the tribe versus the state of WY G&F.

I am saying they should have gotten involved to take care of the problem, not fight against the state.

How in the world the feds made a treaty with the Indians, then told the state to manage the wildlife on the same land, and then essentially supported the tribe taking the state to court. Makes zero sense.

 

[3855WIN]

Are people who drive 80 mph on an interstate highway violating law? You can't answer that until I tell you what law applies. In MN we have interstate posted at 45, 55, 60, 65 & 70. But then in SD we get up to lawful 80 mph. You are not lawless if you are complying with the laws that apply to you at that moment and ignore the ones that don't. Herrera is not an outlaw by hunting at the time and location he did because the wyoming season did not apply to him.

Outlaws leave meat to rot.

 

[hossblur]

Occupied:

(of a place, especially a country) taken control of by military conquest or settlement.

"the occupied territories"

English apparently isn't taught in law school.

Nor is history. As in the same United States that days before was irradiating CROW, suddenly became so supportive of them as to give them rights to game FOREVER, the same game that fed their settlers and armies?

To belive any of that you first have to believe the CROW to be stupid(which I don't). So stupid they thought the same men killing them now wanted them to prosper.

Or that the United States idea for western expansion and manifest Destiny didn't include Wyoming Territory, including OCCUPYING IT.

The language clear. The context is clear. The history is clear.

Not surprising a room full of lawyers could screw it up.

After all these same lawyers found abortion the constitution. Made gun laws legal vs "Shall not be infringed", and found a way to circumvent private property rights in the Kelo decision.

After all I heard a lawyer once straight faced say " that depends on the meaning of is"

If we aren't going to enforce the language as written, and either ignore it, or redefine it, treaties are useless and can mean anything.

In 1868. OCCUPIED had a definite meaning. The men in uniforms signing it, WERE AN OCCUPYING FORCE.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Outlaws leave meat to rot.

I will inform Webster’s that there is a new definition of “outlaw”.

 

[Sytes]

Query... Has the Crow Tribe found their former Game Warden in violation of their tribal conservation F&G laws, specifically 12-5-107, Wanton Waste? Curious the state of "law" the Crow Tribe holds upon it's tribal members that violate their laws... especially those whom are responsible to enforce said laws?
Second thought... no worries, the, at the time, Crow Game Warden was hunting outside the exterior boundary of the Crow Reservation, thus, no law violated. All ethics of a Crow Law Enforcement Officer remains in tact.(?)

 

[VikingsGuy]

So why can't Wyoming allow hunting, just not killing.

They do, it's called hiking. But I have not idea what this has to do with the discussion.

 

[VikingsGuy]

That’s a bit of a jump comparing Herrera to Rosa Parks.

I was not saying the people or their chosen cause were equal - I was reacting to your statement that the answer to WY illegally enforcing their hunting regs on Herrera was for Herrera to save WY the money and embarrassment by just paying his fine - that is simply absurd in a free society.

 

[VikingsGuy]

I didn't at all.
Exactly what you said happened. Which is BS since they should have been one ones taking care of the problem they created on their land instead of joining sides with the tribe versus the state of WY G&F.

I am saying they should have gotten involved to take care of the problem, not fight against the state.

How in the world the feds made a treaty with the Indians, then told the state to manage the wildlife on the same land, and then essentially supported the tribe taking the state to court. Makes zero sense.

Weird line of thinking. The USFS and the Crow tribe agree that treaty hunting rights apply. Why is that a "problem" for them to solve just because WY disagrees? As for the feds, "told the state to manage the wildlife on the same land", would you be happier if the feds started managing all wildlife on federal lands in the west? Seems the opposite of what you would like, but you now seem to demand?

 

[dcreiss]

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?

Negative, rights guaranteed by treaty are afforded to tribal members and are not able to be transferred by the tribe to non-Indians.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Occupied:

(of a place, especially a country) taken control of by military conquest or settlement.

"the occupied territories"

English apparently isn't taught in law school.

Nor is history. As in the same United States that days before was irradiating CROW, suddenly became so supportive of them as to give them rights to game FOREVER, the same game that fed their settlers and armies?

To belive any of that you first have to believe the CROW to be stupid(which I don't). So stupid they thought the same men killing them now wanted them to prosper.

Or that the United States idea for western expansion and manifest Destiny didn't include Wyoming Territory, including OCCUPYING IT.

The language clear. The context is clear. The history is clear.

Not surprising a room full of lawyers could screw it up.

After all these same lawyers found abortion the constitution. Made gun laws legal vs "Shall not be infringed", and found a way to circumvent private property rights in the Kelo decision.

After all I heard a lawyer once straight faced say " that depends on the meaning of is"

If we aren't going to enforce the language as written, and either ignore it, or redefine it, treaties are useless and can mean anything.

In 1868. OCCUPIED had a definite meaning. The men in uniforms signing it, WERE AN OCCUPYING FORCE.

Doesn't take a lawyer to point out that your analysis actually proves definitely that "occupied" can't be the military occupation of the time, as that would render the entire hunting clause meaningless from minute one and therefore would be a nonsensical definition at the time (and now). I am sure the Crow thank you for your helpful analysis.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Query... Has the Crow Tribe found their former Game Warden in violation of their tribal conservation F&G laws, specifically 12-5-107, Wanton Waste? Curious the state of "law" the Crow Tribe holds upon it's tribal members that violate their laws... especially those whom are responsible to enforce said laws?
Second thought... no worries, the, at the time, Crow Game Warden was hunting outside the exterior boundary of the Crow Reservation, thus, no law violated. All ethics of a Crow Law Enforcement Officer remains in tact.(?)

Query - good question. I think the answer is no. Disappointing (especially for a tribal LEO) but sadly not unique in America.

Second thought - I have no actual knowledge, but my guess would be yes.

 

[ClearCreek]

Rather than find the Crow Reservation Game Warden Supervisor in violation of any tribal F&G laws they demoted him to a position that is in charge of endangered species management on the reservation. And, most tribal members regard him as a hero for his actions in killing an elk on the Bighorn National Forest and the followup court proceedings that have taken place.

Regarding waste of meat from killed wildlife, this happens all the time during the fall and winter in northern Sheridan County, WY. Numerous buck deer and bull elk have been killed and either only the antlers removed or the entire animal has been left to spoil. And, I am not exaggerating when I say all the time during the fall and winter months.

ClearCreek

 

[375H&H]

Rather than find the Crow Reservation Game Warden Supervisor in violation of any tribal F&G laws they demoted him to a position that is in charge endangered species on the reservation. And, most tribal members regard him as a hero for doing what he did.

Regarding waste of meat from killed wildlife, this happens all the time during the fall and winter in northern Sheridan County, WY. Numerous buck deer and bull elk have been killed and either only the antlers removed or the entire animal has been left to spoil. And, I am not exaggerating when I say all the time during the fall and winter months.

ClearCreek

Are elk endangered on the Crow reservation?

 

[ClearCreek]

Are elk endangered on the Crow reservation?

Not anymore, now they are extinct on the reservation.

ClearCreek

 

[PrairieHunter]

Weird line of thinking. The USFS and the Crow tribe agree that treaty hunting rights apply. Why is that a "problem" for them to solve just because WY disagrees? As for the feds, "told the state to manage the wildlife on the same land", would you be happier if the feds started managing all wildlife on federal lands in the west? Seems the opposite of what you would like, but you now seem to demand?

Wow, sometimes I forget how out of touch with reality you are. If I remember correctly you are the one who also thinks our food supply is safe in spite of foreign companies owning the largest meat companies in the US and corporate greed compromising our food at every turn.

Wyoming was not even a state when the treaty in question was signed. Why in the heck would this be a Wyoming problem?

It a very logical line of thinking. The people who entered into the treaty should be the ones working this out. Their treaty , their land, their problem. Not a difficult concept to wrap your mind around.

Do you really think it makes sense for Wyoming to do this again and expect a different outcome?

What's absolutely weird about this is the feds taking the side of the tribes and taking no responsibility for their participation in the treaty or in enforcing laws on their property with their own LEO's.

In the end Wyoming got hung out to dry on this deal and should not be wasting resources fighting the tribe as that's all it's going to be, a waste. The feds gave 1 group hunting rights on the land, and then gave the management of the game to another and now there is a conflict.

So in your line of thinking do you think Wyoming needs to keep fighting a losing battle? LOL

 

[BuzzH]

No reason for the FS or any other Federal Agency to fight this battle any longer either, at least according to the Supreme Court.

They worked it out in 1868...if only obviously.

 

[3855WIN]

At my workplace, the office is downstairs. I’ve heard 100 times over the years, “don’t go runnin downstairs”. Meaning, if we involve management in the situation, neither party may like the outcome.
Wyoming is a small state population wise that means nothing in DC. I admire her fight against big brother on several issues, but in the end, she will lose. States rights was lost long ago and will never come back.
As a non-resident, I see that it’s “my public land”, but I have to buy my way into hunting a wilderness area. “My public land” but it belongs to the Crows more than me.